1920-05-05

OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FOURTH SESSION-THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT 10-11 GEORGE V, 1920 IN FIVE VOLUMES

Volume I:: Pages 1-1034	Volume II: Pages 1035-2002


Volume III:: Pages 2003-3078	Volume IV: Pages 3079-4017


Volume V:: Pages 4019-4591



VOLUME CXLIII


[Stage Direction]
IHotisc of Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 5, 1920.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. iC. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 108, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Will .the right hon. gentleman please explain?


Mr. DOHERTY:: The first purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the constitution of the Exchequer Court so as to bring it into correspondence with a provision that was passed the session before last as an amendment to the Judges Act. The Exchequer Court as constituted under the Exchequer Court Act is composed of the judge of the Exchequer Court and an assistant judge. When the amendment to the Judges Act was passed in the first session of 1919, there was in contemplation a modification of the constitution of the court, and in making provision for salaries, provisions were made to correspond with that contemplated modification. Salaries were provided for the president of the court and for two judges, whereas the Act constituting the court created only a judge of the court and an assistant judge. The purpose of the present Bill is to meet, I might say half way, that provision in the Judges Act, which in itself will have to be modified by substituting in the Exchequer Court Act for the provision that the court shall consist of a judge and an assistant judge, a provision that the court shall consist of a president of the court and one puisne judge. The provision in the Salaries Act will have to be made to correspond to that, the number of judges being cut down from two to one. Then, there is a modification of the existing provision with regard to the possible provision of a deputy judge in cases where one may be required.
The next provision is in regard to the office of registrar.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Louder.


Mr. BUREAU:: The Orange Sentinel cannot hear.
Mr. DOHERTY':	I certainly am most
anxious that all vigilant "sentinels" shall be aware of what I am doing. The second purpose of the Bill is to make provision enabling the registrar of 'the court, with the authority of the president or the judge, to deal with certain practice matters, and in that connection provision is made for the appointment and the salary of the registrar.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a first time.
/SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT.
Rt, Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 109, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of the proposed change is to bring about a simplification and uniformity in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and also to prevent appeals being brought to it in .matters of trifling importance on the plea that title to land or future rights are involved. To accomplish the .purposes intended, it is proposed that appeals as of right to the Supreme Court should be restricted to cases in which the amount or value of the matter in controversy in the appeal, whatever its nature, exceeds the sum of $2,000 exclusive of costs and that in all other cases an appeal shall lie ordinarily only by special leave of the highest court of last resort in the province.. Provision is made for appeals per saltum, that is, for appeals from courts other than the final court of last resort in the province. But such appeals are subject to leave by the court of final resort in the province concerned.
Provision is also made for appeals that arise under section 232 of the Railway Act, where the Supreme Court or High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeal, and there is no appeal from the former to the latter, and, therefore, under



the law as it now stands, no appeal to the Supreme Court under the existing jurisdiction.
As the law now stands, in all the provinces of Canada, except Quebec and except in the special cases with regard to titles to real estate and so forth, the right to appeal now depends upon a sum exceeding $1,000, or property of equivalent value, being involved in the appeal. In Quebec, on the other hand, the corresponding restriction on the right to appeal is to cases in which the matter in controversy in the action, that is, demanded in the action, amounts to at least $2,000. Thus a judgment for $100 damages recovered in Quebec, if upheld in the Court of Appeals, is now appealable de piano to the Supreme Court, if the plaintiff s original demand was not less thani $2,000 It is felt that an appeal actually involving a matter of comparatively small value should not be permitted as of right merely because the plaintiff had been advised to claim a comparatively large sum in the first instance. These cases are provided for by extending to the province of Quebec the power to grant leave now existing in the other provinces, hut as modified in section 41 of the present Bill. The Bill substantially involves giving to the provincial courts in "all the provinces exclusive rights to grant leave to appeal in cases not now appealable de piano.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that to mean that the judgment must he for over $2,000 in Quebec now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In order that there
should be an appeal de piano, the judgment itself, the amount in issue on the appeal to the Supreme Court, must he $2,000, and the same provision will hold good as regards all the provinces. But to afford a recourse to those parties who had, because of the original amount of their demands, a right to appeal, and who may consider that they are being deprived of some substantial right, there will be provision whereby in cases of that kind, upon leave from the court of last resort in t'he province, an appeal may be had to the Supreme Court, although the amount at issue on the appeal is not $2,000. That provision also will be common to all the provinces.
The principal purpose of the Bill is to bring about uniformity in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, doing away with the present existing distinctions in that jurisdiction, depending upon the province from which the appeal comes.
To summarize the Bill, under it, in order to be appealable to the Supreme Court, a 
judgment must be rendered in a judicial proceeding as defined. The Bill contains a definition of a judicial proceeding, really adopting, I think, the present accepted view, but it is put in in order to clear up difficulties and differences. The judgment must not .be discretionary, except in equitable proceedings in provinces other than Quebec. It must be a final judgment, as defined in the Bill, unless it directs a new trial or grants or refuses a non-suit, and finally, it must not be rendered in a criminal cause or in habeas corpus, certiorari or prohibition arising out of a criminal charge, or in habeas corpus on extradition. To be appealable as of right, the judgment must involve matter amounting to or having a value exceeding $2,000 exclusive of costs and must be rendered by the highest court of final resort in the province. Appeals from any other court require the leave of the highest court of final resort in the province, or if $2,000 be involved, the consent of the parties. If the judgment be rendered in a proceeding originating before any court, board or commission, of which the judges or presiding officers are not appointed by the Dominion Government, or if it involves less than $1,000 (except in the special cases; that is, the special cases covered by clauses (a) to (e), that is to say, cases having to do with titles to land and so forth) leave of the highest court of final resort in the province to appeal from it is required.
If an amount between $1,000 and $2,000 is involved, and the proceeding originated in a court of which the judges are appointed by the Dominion Government and in the special cases mentioned, that is cases with regard to title to land, future rights, validity of statutes and patents and so forth, leave to appeal may be given by the Supreme Court if refused by the highest court of final resort in the province.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 105 (from the Senate), to incorporate United Canada Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Blake.
Bill No. 106 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur Jones.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 107 (from the Senate), for the relief of Eva Mary Moss.-Mr. Sheard.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many prisoners were released under ticket of leave during last year?
2.	Is it true that one W. H. Tapley, convicted of rape against his daughter, and sentenced to penitentiary, was released recently under the ticket of leave?
3.	If so, why and at whose request?


Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	824.
2.	Yes.
3.	By order of His Excellency the Governor General on petitions by his sons and daughter (the victim of the crime), and others, after he had served, with remission, seven years and three months.


WINNIPEG GRAIN EXCHANGE.
*Mr. PECK:: 1.	Is the Government aware of any combination of vessel brokers in the Winnipeg Grain Exchange formed since the year 1914?
,	2. Was this combination in the nature of
pooling their interests?
3.	Was such pool recognized by the Canadian Wheat Board and did such board authorize its continuance and recognize it as a proper and reasonable organization for such a purpose?
4.	Did the Government aid such pool?
5.	Who were the members of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange who compose this combination or pool?
6.	Was the present chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board or his immediate business associates connected with the combination?
7.	Who were the vessel brokers who were members of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange at the time of the outbreak of the war?
8.	Among these, who enlisted for overseas service and in what capacity?
9.	Are any of these overseas men still members of the Exchange, and who are they?
10.	Did any of these men apply for admission to the pool mentioned above after returning from the war, and if so, with what result?
It: Does the Government or Canadian Wheat Board purpose the allowance of the continuation of such a pool, and if so, will members of the Exchange who performed overseas service be permitted to become associated with and enjoy the benefits derived from such organization?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: These questions refer to matters entirely within the competence of the non-governmental agencies and agents therein mentioned, with the organization and operation of which the Government has nothing to do and of which it has no records.


THE CALENDAR OP THE HOUSE.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Why is the calendar on the Table of the Clerk of the House of Commons in English only?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to have also on this table a French calendar?
3.	If so, when?
4.	If not, why?
128* .


George Green Foster: My reply to the question asked by my honourable friend; the member for Charlevoix and (Montmorency, is this:
In placing that calendar on the Table of the House of Commons, traditions of former years since the origin of Confederation until our days have been observed. Under these cir cum stances, I do not deem it necessary either to replace it with another one or to put another one on the Clerk's desk. What was sufficient for the fathers of Confederation should surely satisfy us, for we are not less intelligent nor more patriotic than our predecessors.


PRINTING BUREAU EMPLOYEES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOURASiSA:
1.	How many French-Canadians were employed, in every branch of the Printing Bureau, on the 1st of March, 1920?
2.	How many English-Canadians were employed, in every branch of the Printing Bureau, on the 1st of March, 1920?
3.	At the same date, what was the number of employees of other origin?
Rt. Hon. (Mr. SIFTON: 1, 2, 3. No record.

Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	What is the name of the postmaster at St. Romuald, Levis County?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	What are the names of the persons who recommended the appointment of this postmaster?
Rt. Hon. -Mr. SIFTON:
1.	Henri Dutil.
2.	April 19, 1920.
3.	The Post Office Inspector, S. Tanner Green, Quebec; by the Mayor and the Cure of the place and by petition signed by over 60 citizens using the post office.


TUBERCULAR RETURNED SOLDIERS.
Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: 1.	What is the total number of returned soldiers adjudged tubercular subjects now under treatment -in our sanatoria in the different provinces throughout the Dominion?
2.	What percentage have been discharged from the sanatoria considered cured?
3.	What is found to -be the time required to treat the above -patients in the sanatoria before cure is effected?
4.	What percentage are considered incurable?
5.	What is the percentage of deaths while undergoing treatment?
6.	What is the total number treated in each province respectively?
7.	What is ithe cost per capita per month?
8.	Have any investigations been made to show -that soldiers who have -been gassed develop tuberculosis as a result thereof?


Mr. HUGH CLARK (Parliamentary Secretary) :: 1.	1,715.

''2. 30.4 per cent.
3.	The average period for sanatorium treatment is 6-7 months. This figure is taken from a return based on all admissions to sanatoria and include certain non-tubereulous and observation cases. Therefore, it may be assumed that the stay of the average tuberculous case is of longer
[DOT].duration.
4.	1-5.6 per cent.
5.	6,23 per cent.
6.	The total number of ex-soldiers treated in sanatoria in each province is as follows:
Ontario	- [DOT] [DOT]
Quebec	
Prince 'Ed'ward1 Island and, Nova
Scotia	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	 [DOT]
New Brunswick	
3,404
1,350
1,124
445
735
7.	$77.10 for maintenance, treatment, etc., not including capital expenditure.
8.	A Board of Consultants, consisting of five of the most competent tuberculosis specialists in Canada, is investigating the whole question of the treatment of tuberculosis occurring amongst ex-members of the forces. The board has been requested to make special inquiries in each sanatorium with reference to patients who are shown on their medical documents to have been exposed to gas-, in order that the connection of gassing with pulmonary tuberculosis-may be definitely established.


CANADIAN NORTHERN SECURITIES.
Mr. JOHNSTON:: 1.	What Canadian Northern securities matured during 1919, and during the present year?
2.	What was the individual amount of these securities, at what price were they sold, and what rate of interest did they carry?
3.	Were payments made in Canadian funds? If not, what did the adverse rate of exchange cost Canada?
4.	What was the yield to the investor in each case?
5.	Were new securities issued to retire them? If so, at what price were they sold, and what rate of interest did they bear?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 
DOMINION LAND SURVEYS.
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	May the Civil Service Commission refuse the reappointment of a Dominion Land Surveyor employed for several years consecutively without any reason being shown for such refusal and when his services are satisfactory to the head of the department?
2.	Is Order in Council, P.C. 1479, considered to be applicable to the appointment of employees requiring special technical qualifications?
3.	Must men in a technical service be promoted in lists prepared by the Civil Service Commission rather than on merit, as decided by the head of the branch under whom they serve?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	The regula ion governing Season appointments which has been approved by the Governor in Council, promulgated by Order in Council of July 17, 1919, (P.C. 1479), is as follows:
" All positions in the 'Civil Service where the nature of service is such that it is not continuous through the year but recurs in each successive year, shall be designated as " Season Positions," and shall be subject to the provisions of the regulations applicable generally to positions to be filled by open competition, including preference to returned soldiers if-such are qualified and available. Provided that when a department feels that a former seasonal employee is indispensable, and so writes the commission, giving the grounds on which

they reach that conclusion, and provided also that such seasonal employee has filed in the office of the commission in such form as may be prescribed, an application for reappointment endorsed by the deputy head of the department, at least one month before the date when he shall again be required to report for service, the commission may give consideration to a requisition for re-employment, and may certify the persons who have made such formal requests that they shall be reappointed to their former positions, if in the meantime they have not been reported against and are not otherwise disqualified. In every other case such positions must be advertised, in order to determine whether any returned soldier possessing the necessaiy qualifications is available.
" Provided that for sufficient reason the commission may waive the time limit for filing applications."
2.	Yes.
3.	All lists prepared by the Civil Service Commission are in order of merit. In deciding cases of promotion the following Order in Council of December 3, 1919 (P.C. 2434), governs, viz:

" Until such time as the regulations of the commission governing promotion examinations have been approved by the Governor in Council, promotions may be made by the commission based upon an examination of the qualifications of the candidates considered by the commission as in line for the vacancy required to be filled, efficiency and seniority to be the governing factors in such examinations."


COLONEL, GRASSIE ARCHIBALD.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Is Colonel Grassie Archibald at present in the employ of the Canadian Government in any position?
2.	Was he at one time in such employ at Aberdeen, Scotland?
3.	If so, what was the nature of his duties and what salary was he paid?
4.	What was the total cost of the office of
which he was in charge?	'
5.	Whilst holding the rank of colonel where and. when did he serve?
6.	Did he have any military service before his appointment as colonel?
7.	If so, under what rank or ranks and where did he render such service?
8.	What was the total remuneration from all sources received by the said Colonel Grassie Archibald whilst in the Canadian army?
9.	Whilst receiving pay for military service did he receive any other pay from any other department of the Government?
10.	If so, from what departments and what were the different amounts paid him by each department?
Rt, Hon. Mr. SIFTON:
1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	Canadian Government emigration agent; was appointed at $1,800 per annum and was in receipt of $2,000 per annum at the time of his resignation.
4.	$43,000.20, from December 26, 1912 to December 31, 1919. This is made up of $21,051.03, salaries (including salary of Mr. Archibald) $6,276.30 rental; $2,901.75, for shows and lectures; $12,771.12, for advertising, travelling, office and general expenses.
5.	This officer did not at any time hold the rank of Colonel. While holding the rank of Lieut.-Colonel, he served as follows: In France, from 2nd December, 1918, to 23rd June, 1919. In England, 24th June, 1919, to 2nd August, 1919. In Canada, 3rd August, 1919, to 15th August, 1919.
6.	Answered by Nos. 5 and 7.
7.	(a) Appointed to 76th Regiment, Canadian Militia, as lieutenant, 22nd August, 1910.	(b) As lieutenant, Canadian Militia,
attached to Depot Gordon Highlanders, Arberdeen, Scotland, between 14th May, 1914, and 10th July, 1914, for instruction, and without expense to the public, (c) Joined 1st Canadian Contingent, 17th Battalion, at Pond Farm Camp, Salisbury Plain, 1st November, 1914, from which date he -was gazetted to the C.E.F. with the rank of captain in the C.E.F. (d) Captain in France from 15th February, 1915. Major in France from 31st December, 1915. A/Lt:-Colonel, France, from 2nd December, 1918, Temp. Lt.-Colonel in France from 2nd June* 1919. Returned to England, 24th June, 1919. Proceeded to Canada, 3rd August,. 1919. Lieut.-Colonel, struck off strength on general demobilization, 15th August, 1919.
8.	From 1914 to 15th August, 1919, pay and allowance of his rank, $14,746.50, and, in addition, six months' War Service Gratuity. $2,196.
9.	Yes.
10.	From Department of Immigration and Colonization during the period of military service $9,354.45.


NEW ONE CENT COIN.
Mr. DENIS:: 1.	When does the Government intend to make, issue ana put in circulation the new one cent coin ?
2.	Does the Government intend to have these coins stamped in French and English languages?
3.	If not, why?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	As soon as coinage dies have been prepared, these dies are now in course of prep-

aration and it is expected the new coins will be in circulation before the end of 1920.
2.	and 3. In the new one cent coin the same designation will be used as has been used since Confederation.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT BONDS.
Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	What is the amount of Canadian Government bonds issued in Canada since the beginning of the war and still outstanding?
2.	What is the amount of such bonds exempt from the operation of the income tax law?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.
Outstanding
Issued. March 31, 1920.
War Loan, 19151925	$100,000,000
War Loan, 19161931	  106,706,300
War Loan, 19171937	  172,926,800
Victory Loan,
1917	. 546,148,750
Victory Loan,
1918	. 681,230,450
Victory Loan,
1919		
As passed through
the books of the Finance Department to March 31, 1920
$	43,246,300.00
54.398.700.00
92.652.800.00
513.628.150.00
676.938.050.00
566,302,847.42
Total	 $1,947,166,847.42
2.
All excepting 1919 Victory Loan-Total as of March 31, 1920, $1,380,864,000.00.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY HEAD OFFICE.
*Mr. FOSTER (York):: The Grand Trunk Railway having been taken over by the Government to be operated in conjunction with the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk Pacific, is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways Board to have its head office in Toronto?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: The question has not been considered:


CANADIAN NORTHERN LANDS.
*Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Have the 439,380 acres of land earned by the Canadian Northern railway and its subsidiaries from the province of Quebec been transferred to the Government of Canada as part of the assets of the Canadian Northern Railway system ?
2.	If so, when were said lands transferred?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	Contracts are executed between the province of Quebec and the several railways included in the Canadian Northern Railway system covering the lands referred to, but the land has not yet been selected. Negotia-

tions have recently been under way between the railway and the Provincial Government.
2.	Answered by No. I.


VICTORY LOAN SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Has the Government named a committee on Victory Loan, with headquarters at Montreal?
2.	What is the purpose of said committee?
3.	What are the names of the persons serving on said committee?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	The Victory Loan Special Committee has a district office at Montreal.
2.	The main purpose of the control exercised by the committee is to insure a sound and steady distribution, of bonds offered from time to time with a view to preventing violent fluctuations and securing for investors who are forced to sell the best possible prices.
3.	The members of this special committee are G. H. Wood, Toronto, chairman; Edwin Hanson, Montreal, vice-chairman; P. Mc-Dougall, Montreal; Edgar M. Smith, Montreal; Sir Augustus Nanton, Winnipeg; H. R. Thudhope, Toronto; J. W. Mitchell, Toronto; W. A. MacKenzie, Toronto.


CANADIAN NORTHERN ARBITRATION COST.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: What was the gross amount of legal and other expenses connected with the Canadian Northern arbitration proceedings?


James Alexander Calder: The following is in so for as the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned: $86,178.25.


PAYMENTS ON STERLING TO C.E.F.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Have the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who received their pay in England or in France been paid the difference in exchange?
2.	If not, who received said benefit?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	All payments in sterling to personnel of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada during the years 1914-15-16-17 and '18 were converted to Canadian currency at the par rate of exchange, $4.86 2/3 to the pound and debited to their pay accounts at that rate. Payments in continental currencies were converted from such currency to sterling at a flat monthly rate of exchange established by the War Office, based on commercial rates, which in the case of French currency

varied from five francs equals four shillings in 1915, to three and five pence in 1919.
2.	All payments to members of the 'C.E.F. Overseas were made out of moneys at the credit of the Dominion Government in the Bank of Montreal, London, which moneys were received from the Imperial Government by way of advances for war purposes, at par, so that no benefit aocrued to the Dominion Government by reason of exchange. Balances of pay and allowances held in England by Canadian soldiers were on their return to Canada converted into Canadian dollars at the par rate of exchange.. The expenditure necessary to provide for this conversion being charged to Vote 544, 1919-1920.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE FREIGHT RATES.
John Ewen Sinclair: Are the rates of freight charged hy vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited, subject to the control in any way of the United States Shipping Board?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: No.
SPUR LINE BETWEEN STE. ROSALIE AND -	BAGOT.


Mr. MARCILE (Bagot):: 1.	Is the spur line of the railway between St. Rosalie and Bagot wholly constructed?
2.	What amount has been spent up to date on that line?
3.	H&ve the farmers been paid for their rights of way?
4.	If so. what is the amount?
5.	If not, why?
.	6. What is the level of the new line as compared with the old one?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	No.
2.	$225,338.52.
3.	Cheques have been issued for fourteen out of a total of twenty-one parcels of land.
4.	$7,821.70.
5.	Negotiations have not been completed for the balance of the land.
6.	Maximum grade, new line, 4/10 of 1 per cent. Maximum grade, old line, 1.07 per cent.


EXHIBITION BUILDINGS .USED BY MILITIA.
Mr. FOSTER (York):: 1.	How much is the Government paying for the exhibition buildings in St. John, N.B., used by the militia during the war?
2.	How much is the Government paying for the Toronto Fair buildings used by the militia during the war?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Insurance premiums	$	918 85
In full and final settlement of all claims against the department	 35,000 00

No rent was paid.
2.	Construction work and outfitting	$70,337	84
Maintenance (repairs, fuel,
light, etc.)	
22,677	16Restoration	
124,966	37

No rent was paid.


BELL TELEPHONE RATES APPEAL.
Mr. FOSTER (York) :: 1.	What is being done with the appeal to the Governor General in Council by the city of Toronto from the judgment of the Railway Commission granting a large increase in the rates of tlhe Bell Telephone Company?
2.	How long has this appeal been pending in the Department of Justice?


Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	The appeal is fixed for hearing by the Governor General in Council on the 19th of May.
2.	The appeal is to the Governor General in Council. It is not and never has been pending in the Department of Justice.


SUGAR IMPORTATIONS.
Mr. JOHNSTON:: 1.	What quantity	of	sugar	was importedduring the financial	year	ending March 31,
1920?
2.	What was the value of said sugar?
3.	What amount of duty was paid thereon?
Hon. Mr. iBURRELL:
1.	Imported and entered for consumption-
Lbs.
Raw sugar	 1,081,575,107
Refined sugar	 1,155,577
Total	 1,082,730,684
2.	Imported and entered for consumption-
Raw sugar	$ 68,343,171
Refined sugar	 114,190
Total	$ 68,457,361
3.	Duty paid thereon-
Raw sugar	$14,435,479.98
Refined sugar	 22,616.14
Total	$14,458,096.12


THE LAST CENSUS.
Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Is it true that, in the last census, in certain provinces, and especially in certain

cities, the figures of the population were considerably exaggerated?
2.	Does the Government intend to take measures in order to prevent similar errors in the next census?
3.	If so, what action will be taken?
iSir GEORGE FOSTER:
1. The Government has no information of such being the case.
2 and 3. The Government will take every precaution to procure an accurate census.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY FREIGHT TARIFFS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MaCNUTT :
1.	What freight tariffs, if any, were filed with the Government showing the reductions in rates agreed to by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company by 'Special Act 60-61^ Victoria, chapter 5, 1897, Crow's Nest Agreement (assented to June 29, 1897)?
2.	What are the particulars of each tariff, date, number, date effective, description of tariff and application?
3.	If tariffs were not filed, will the Government bring down an immediate report from the Department of Railways and Canals, or the Board of Railway Commissioners, giving the information requested in clause 2 above?
4.	What was the carload rate on horses in ordinary box cars, from Toronto and other stations in Ontario to Regina, under the Crows Nest Agreement?
5.	What was the carload rate on horses in ordinary box cars, from Toronto and other stations in Ontario, to Regina, prior to Privy Council Order 1863, July 27, 1918, and which order authorized the Board of Railway Commissioners to disregard the Crows Nest Agreement?
6.	What rates in excess of the guaranteed rates (Crows Nest Agreement) were exceeded by the Canadian Pacifi railway, prior to P.C. 1863^ July 27, 1918, referred to in clause 5?
Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	The Crows Nest Pasfe Agreement was assented to June 29, 1897. The railway companies, subject to- the Board of Railway Commissioners, commenced filing their tariffs with the hoard, December 1, 1904.
2.	Following is a list of the freight tariffs of the Canadian Pacific railway applicable in (whole or in part to the commodities covered hy the Crows Nest Pass Agreement, as first filed with the hoard:
Tariff.	Effective. Description.
C.R.C. E. 257, Aug. 1, 1904. .All-rail. Eastern
Canada to points in Manitoba, and Ontario west of Port Arthur.
C.R.C. E. 259, Aug. 1, 1904.. All-rail. Eastern
Canada to As-siniboia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
Description.
Lake - and - rail. Eastern Canada to Ontario and Manitoba, Port Arthur and West.
Lake - and - rail. Eastern Canada to Assiniboia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
All-rail.	Live
Stock, Eastern Canada to stations Fort William and West. From Port Arthur and Fort William, westbound to Ontario and Manitoba.
From Port Arthur and Fort William, to Assiniboia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Grain and grain products from stations in Western Canada to Port Arthur and Fort William.
3.	Answered by Numbers 1 and 2.
4.	The carload rate on horses in ordinary
box	or	stock cars	from	Montreal	and
stations west thereof in Ontario and Quebec .to Regina, shown in the first tariff filed with the board, namely C.R.C. No. E.-128, effective May 20, 1903, was 74 cents per 100 lbs., minimum weight, 20,000 lbs. per car.
5.	The carload rate on horses in ordinary
,box	or	stock cars	from	Montreal	and
stations west thereof in Ontario and Quebec to Regina, prior to Privy" Council Order 1863, was 96 cents per 100 libs., minimum weight 20,000 lbs. per car.
6.	This cannot be answered specifically as
the tariffs first issued under the Crows Nest Agreement are not in the files of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Compared with the tariffs filed with the board, December 1, 1904, the rates on the commodities covered by the Crows Nest Agreement do 'no-t appear to have been exceeded until the issue of P.C. 1863, except on horses, in carloads, on which the rates exceeded those of December 1, 1904, as follows, in cents per 100 lbs.:	.
Tariff.	Effective.	Rate.C.R.C. E.	28	..	..May 20 1903 ___ 74	cents.C.R.C. E.	1790 ..	. .July 21,1910___ 96	cents.C.R.C. E.	2894 ..	..Jan. 1,1915___ 96	cents.Tariff.	Effective.
C.R.C. E. 232, Opening of navigation, 1905 ....
C.R.C. E. 234, Opening of navigation, 1905 ....
C.R.C. E. 12S. May 20, 1903. .
C.R.C. W. 40, May 10, 1902..
C.R.C. W. 41, May 14, 1902..
C.R.C. W. 73, Oct. _ 7, 1903. .


TOTAL, LIABILITY OP CANADIAN NORTHERN.
Mr. PAPINEAU:: What was the total liability of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, including also the liability of the Equipment Company of the Canadian Northern, the 31st of December, 1.919?


James Alexander Calder: The total indebtedness of the Canadian Northern Railway as of December 31, 1919, including funded debt, equipment securities, land securities, advances made by the Dominion Government, and all other liabilities outstanding was $566,097,408.10.


ST. THEODORE D'ACTON POST OFFICE.
Mr. MARGILE (Bagot) :: 1.	When was the location of the post office at St. Theodore d'Aeton changed?
2.	Who recommended the present location?
3.	Is the Government aware that it is very far from the church and consequently inconvenient to the farmers?
4.	Have Messrs. Telesphore Picard and Remi Desautels, both residing in front of the church, refused to take said post office in their homes?
5.	Have these two gentlemen been asked to take charge of the post office?
6.	If not, why?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Appointment of Mrs. Rene Gauthier authorized October 10, 1919.
2.	Mr. Victor Gaudet, Post Office Inspector for the Montreal district.
3.	No.
4.	Mr. Telesphore Picard applied for the appointment but there is no record that Mr. Remi Desautels applied.
5.	No.
6.	The inspector reported that "several candidates were in the field, but a large majority of the leading citizens of St. Theodore d'Acton, not to say all of them, are in favour of Mrs. Rene Gauthier. Recommendations in her favour have been received from the parish priest, the mayor,
' the members of the municipal council, the secretary-treasurer, the principal merchant of the place, the owner of the butter factory, and several other leading citizens.
There is no returned soldier available."


BAGOT COUNTY ELECTORAL LIST.
Mr. MARCILE (Bagot):: 1.	Has the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery received the electoral list of the county of Bagot ?
2.	If so, is it possible to have copies of same?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1. The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery has not received the electoral list of the county of Bagot. The obligation on the part of custodians of provincial lists to
furnish the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery with certified copies thereof ceased on the passing of the War-time Elections Act, September, 1917.	-
2. Copies may be obtained from the Registrar for the county of Bagot.


SHAREHOLDERS OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	Who are the shareholders of the corporation known as the ''Canadian Government Merchant Marine?"
2.	Did the shareholders invest any of their [DOT] own money in this venture? If not, who furnished the capital?
3.	Who are the directors?
4.	Is there a separate company or corporation for each ship?
5.	In what name does the title to the ship stand on the registry?
6.	Does the Department of Railways and Canals receive a statement at stated periods from the Canadian Government Merchant Marine showing the profits and toss of the business? If so, how often?
7.	Who is responsible to the ratepayers for the conduct of the business carried on by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?
S.	Is a separate account kept for each ship?
9.	What rate of insurance is being paid on the hulls of ships belonging to this company?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	All of the issued capital stock of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine; Limited, less directors' qualifying shares, are owned by His Majesty the King and held' by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada.
2.	The total investment in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine is made by the Government.
3.	Mr. D. B. Hanna, Mr. A. J. Mitchell, Major G. A. Bell, C.M.G., Mr. E. R. Wood, Mr. Robt. Hobson, Sir Hormisdas La-porte. Dr. A. P. Barnhill, Col. Thos. Cantley.
4.	Yes.
5.	Title to each vessel will stand on the registry in the name of the separate ship company, with a mortgage thereon in favour of His- Majesty the King.
6.	A statement of the operations of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, as furnished to the directors at their regular meetings, is supplied both to the Department of Railways and to the Department of Marine.
7.	The Government.
8.	Accounts are kept showing, separately, the operation of each vessel.
9.	Arrangements for insurance and rates are made 'by the operating company. Rates

of insurance vary from time to time and lowest tenders are accepted.


BOARD OF COMMERCE REPORT.
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: When does the Government expect that the Board of Commerce will make its report to the Government ?


George Green Foster: I am not certain just when the report will be brought down, but my latest information is that it is nearly ready for laying upon the table of the House.


TAXATION OF ''MUTUAL&quot; INSURANCE COMPANIES.
*Mr. BIN FRET:: 1.	Does the Government intend to Impose a tax of (15 per cent on the "mutual" or nonauthorized insurance companies?
2.	If so, how many companies, approximately, are to be affected by said tax?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: This information will be given when the legislation pertaining thereto, if any, is brought down.


CANADIAN NORTHERN PORT ARTHUR TERMINALS.
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Have the terminals, lands and buildings forming part of and operated by the Canadian Northern Railway system at Port Arthur been turned over to the Government as part of the system of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	Have the ore docks and buildings located at Port Arthur and forming part of and operated by the Canadian Northern Railway been turned over to the Government as part of the system of the Canadian National Railways?
3.	Have the lands, buildings and other properties of the Atikokan Iron Company been acquired by the Government and are they now controlled and do they form part of the Canadian National Railway system?
4.	Have the lands controlled by the Lake Superior Terminal Company, part of the Mac-kenzie-Mann Company or Canadian Northern Railway system, been acquired by the Government and are they now the property of and operated by the Canadian National Railways?
Hon. Mr. tCALDER:
1.	The terminals, lands, and buildings used by the Canadian Northern Railway system at Port Arthur are owned by said company.
2.	No, but the Canadian Northern Railway is operating these premises under lease.
3.	No.
4.	The Canadian Northern Railway owns the entire capital stock of the Lake Superior Terminals, Limited, thereby controlling any lands or properties owned by that company.


EXCESS BUSINESS PROFITS TAXATION.
Pierre-François Casgrain: How much has the Government received as an additional revenue through the Excess Business Profits Tax Act over and above what they would have received under the Income Tax Act, assuming that all companies would have been taxed at 10 per cent?


Henry Lumley Drayton: To answer this question would necessitate the examination of approximately 100,000 returns and the employment of many accountants.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS INCORPORATION.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Have any Orders in Council been passed under the provisions of section 11 of chapter 13, 9-10 Geo. V, An Act to incorporate Canadian National Railway Company and respecting Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, when and what are the number of said Orders in Council?
3.	If not, why?
Hon. Mr. CALDER (for Mr. ReidV
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The provisions of section 1 of the Act referred to have not been given effect to.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: 1.	What are the totals of credits advanced by the Canadian Government to (a) Great Britain, (b) the Allied Powers, before the armistice.
2.	Of these totals what proportions were used respectively for the (purchase of (a) agricultural products, (b) manufactured goods.
3.	What are the totals of credits advanced by the Canadian Government to (a) Great Britain, (b) the Allied Powers, after the armistice?
4.	Of these totals What proportio'ns (were used respectively for the purchase of (a) agricultural products, (b) manufactured goods?


Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	How many horses were brought back to Canada from overseas, including those from
Siberia?
2.	What did it -cost per head to bring them back?
3.	Are all senior officers from colonel upwards entitled to a horse?
4.	What officers get two horses?
5.	What was the cost to the country to feed these horses from their arrival in Canada up to the 15th of March?
6.	How many officers and men are employed looking after said horses from the date of their arrival up to the 15th of March?
7.	Where are these horses at the present time?


Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: 1. What is the amount of Income Taxes for which returns have been made for the respective years 1916, 1917 and 1918, but which have not been collected?

2. What is the amount of Business Profits War Taxes for which returns have been made for the respective years 1916, 1917 and 1918, but which have not been collected?


George Eulas Foster: How much money has been spent by the Dominion Government since Confederation on improvements in the harbours of Halifax, St. John, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Port Arthur, Victoria and Vancouver?


Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Is it a fact that the so-called American experts employed by the Government for the re-classification of the Civil Service have finished their work or been dismissed or have resigned?
2.	What are their respective names and salaries per day, and how much extra moneys have been paid to each of them respectively for travelling expenses and overtime?
3.	Is it a fact that on leaving employment they have taken away with them the cards filled by the employees for the purpose of the re-classification? If it is so, is it the intention of the Government to claim these cards?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Is the following statement credited to T, B. Patton, Income Tax Adjuster, correct-that Income Tax collected by the Federal Government from farmers of Canada amounted to the sum of $389,011 In four years, and the total amount collected was $83,768,110 from all other sources?
2.	IVhat was the total amount of Income Tax collected by the Federal Government in the past four years?
3.	What was the amount of Income Tax collected from each province for each year?


John Ewen Sinclair: What are the names of all persons who have passed the Civil Service examinations from the province of Prince Edward Island in 1917, 1918 and 1919, showing:, (a) the grade for which they passed; (b) the number of marks made by each; (c) those who are returned soldiers; (d) those who have received an appointment with the name of their position?



NOTICES OF MOTION.

[Stage Direction]
On Government Notices of Motion being called:
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask when hon. members will have the opportunity to move the resolutions under " Notices of Motions."


George Green Foster: Mr. Speaker, I desire now to
proceed to the older " Notices of Motions " so that any motions that are unopposed may be passed, and that others may be diopped.



BOARD OF COMMERCE PROCEEDINGS.

Pierre-François Casgrain: For a copy of all investigations, reports and proceedings in connection with the work carried on by the Board of Commerce, along with a co>py of all decisions rendered showing sentences or fines imposed by the said board and a statement showing the costs of conducting such proceedings and investigations.


George Green Foster: I am not prepared to adopt that motion at the present time for two reasons. One is that the amount of work involved would be very great and the return tremendously bulky. In the second place, the report of the Board of Commerce is pretty nearly ready for laying on the table of the House, and I think it will give all pertinent and really useful information in connection with this question. The motion calls for a detailed report of everything that has been done by the Board of Commerce as a body.
Motion stands.



PROPOSED GOVERNMENT SUPERVISION OF STEAMSHIP COMPANIES.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the motion:
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: That, in the opinion of this House, the recommendations set forth in the final report of the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions, and presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of His Majesty, in March, 1917, showing that it is not desirable that the operations of the steamship companies carrying passengers and freight between the Dominion of Canada and the United Kingdom should remain longer without some measure of Government supervision, should be given effect; and that this Government should take immediate steps to assist the Imperial Government in bringing about Government control of the ocean carriers doing business (or. from time to time, doing business) between ports in the United Kingdom and ports in the Dominion of Canada, and that a permanent commission representing all parts of the Empire be established, which shall be invested with wide powers relative to transportation on the high seas ; 3uch powers, as far as possible, to be similar or analogous to those which have been conferred in Canada and in other Dominions upon permanent commissioners charged with the suocrvision and control o? railway and steamship rates and their methods and conditions of operation.


John Alexander Macdonald Armstrong: May I ask if the Acting Prime Minister is prepared to accept* this resolution?


George Green Foster: No, I am afraid not. I would advise my hon. friend to drop it. If he wishes to make any remarks in reference to it he can do so when the House is in Committee of Supply.


John Alexander Macdonald Armstrong: I will drop it under
the circumstances.
Motion dropped.



CORRESPONDENCE RE INDIAN AFFAIRS.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the motion:
Mr. CANNON:: For a copy of all correspondence between the last Huron chiefs of the Indian Reserve of Lorette, Messrs Sloul and Sullivan, barristers, and the Department of Indian Affairs since 1883.


George Green Foster: I would ask
that this motion stand, unless the hon. member wishes to drop it. The amount of work that would be involved in preparing the teturn to this order would be very large. If there is any particular information that my hon. friend desires I would advise him to take the matter up with one of the officers of the department, and I am confident he would be able to secure the information he seeks without necessitating all the work that this motion would call for.


Lucien Cannon: I will do that with pleasure.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the motion dropped?


Lucien Cannon: Yes.
Motion dropped.



THE HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the motion:
Mr. CAMPBELL proposed:
That, in the opinion of this House, owing to insistent demands from the West, extending over a long period, and after many years investigation as to the feasibility of the route, the construction of the Hudson Bay Railway as a national enterprise was commenced in 1910.
And whereas the work progressed very slowly hut was carried on until the close of the year 1917, by which time the grade was completed to the hay and rails laid as far as mile 332, including the construction of two large steel bridges over the Nelson, and extensive work at the Port Nelson terminals; the total expenditure now being over 120,000,000.
And whereas, owing to the length of time that the road has been under construction, and to lack of attention paid to the completed part thereof, the whole roadbed is in danger of serious deterioration.
And whereas the construction of this road has been the means of bringing to light the existence of natural resources in the territory through which it passes, and in the bay itself not hitherto known, such as minerals, pulpwood, fisheries, water powers and agricultural lands, the development of which would undoubtedly be to the material advantage of Canada; and whereas to leave the road in its present unfinished state would mean the loss of millions of dollars directly, and much more indirectly, through non-development of the above-mentioned resources. And whereas certain lands in the West were, some years ago, set aside to he disposed of in manner stipulated to create a fund for the construction of the railway, and sales of these lands have been made to the extent of

$30,000,000, over one-half of which has been paid, it is advisable that the Hudson Bay railway should be completed to the bay this year by the laying of steel for the remaining 92 miles and the doing of such other work as may be necessary to put the road in proper shape for operation.
Mr. J. A. CAMPBELL (Nelson):: I have no desire to delay the proceedings of the House by a lengthy discussion of this motion, if there is some means by which a formal statement of my views .might be obviated. I was wondering whether the leader of the Government could say what work it- is proposed to do on the Hudson Bay railway this year an-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Any statement of that
kind will not be in order at this stage. The motion has been called and the hon. member can signify his desire that it stand, or be either passed as non-contentiouis or dropped. He can obtain his inormation in Supply or on the motion to go into Supply.


George Green Foster: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) understands that if he allows his motion to stand now he cannot bring the question up on the Estimates, and I suppose he would like to be free to make some remarks on the subject matter of his resolution when the Estimates are before the House. I would therefore advise him to drop the motion.


John Archibald Campbell: Very well. I understood, however, that in view of a statement made a few days ago to a deputation, the Acting Prime Minister-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order; the hon. member is not in order in discussing the subject at this juncture.
Motion dropped.



CORRESPONDENCE PIE CRIMINAL TRIALS.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the motion:
Pierre-François Casgrain: For the production of copies of all letters, telegrams, papers and correspondence exchanged between the Department of Justice and others, as the case may he, in reference to the trial of one Onofrio Montzano held at Murray Bay, district of Saguenay, in 1912, and the trial of the Labrie brothers, held at Sherbrooke, district of St. Francjois, and their release from penitentiary on account of irregularities in the proceedings followed at each of these trials, and also copies of all documents contained in the records of the Department of Justice in reference thereto.
Rt. Hon. >C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):	With reference to this motion
I may say, so that the hon. member may

not be disappointed, that my strong impression that it is unlikely that the documents called for by this motion will be procured. If the hon. gentleman reflects a moment he will realize that the Department of Justice has no direct communication with the provincial courts in the administration of justice. All the records of those courts are provincial records and we do not get reports of that character.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the motion:
Pierre-François Casgrain: For production of copies of all letters, telegrams, papers, documents and correspondence in reference to the release from penitentiary of one W. H. Tapley and one E. I.,. Baugh.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is impossible to assent to the passing of this resolution. It is very well recognized in the House that correspondence with regard to applications for tickets of leave is of a confidential nature and is not to be brought down. There are numerous instances in which the matter has been brought up, and the last time I recollect its being discussed was in 1913, when the subject was discussed on both sides of the House, and when the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier entirely concurred in the view that these papers were not of a kind that ought to be ordered to be brought down.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Shall the motion stand, or is it dropped?	.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Dropped.
Motion dropped.



BOARD OF COMMERCE.

Pierre-François Casgrain: I desire permission to revert to Order No. 5:
For a copy of all investigations, reports and proceedings in- connection with the work carried on by the Board of Commerce, along with a copy of all decisions rendered showing sentences or fines imposed by the said board and a statement showing the costs of conducting such proceedings and investigations.
I would ask that this motion be dropped.
Motion dropped.



CHAMPLAIN MARKET SITE.

Mr. C. G. POWER (South Quebec):: I ask permission to revert to Order No. 6:
For a copy of all documents, contracts and correspondence relating to the negotiations between the city of Quebec and the Transcontinental railway regarding the Champlain market site and the proposed docks and grain elevators situated along the front of the St. Lawrence river, Quebec.
I beg to move this motion:


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hunting-don):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Quebec (Mr. Lavigueur) I move on his behalf resolution No. 32:
For copy of all papers, documents and letters in connection with Dr. Michel Fiset, of Quebec city, appointment by Order in Council, dated ISth April, 1914, as parcel post supervisor in Quebec city, with a salary of $2,800 a year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ernest Lapointe: For a copy of a letter sent on January 30, 1920, to the Right Honourable Sir George Foster, Acting Prime Minister, by J. T. Ross, Esq., President of the Quebec Board of Trade, concerning the intention of the Government td build in Canada a number of 15,000-ton passenger steamships with a speed of 18 knots for the Canadian service, and a copy of the letter in answer thereto.


Ernest Lapointe: For a copy of a letter of the Board of Trade of Quebec to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, dated December 29, 1919, concerning the loss of the Government steamship Canadian Recruit and the accident to the Government steamer Canadian Spinner and other accidents due to want of icebreakers, and a copy of the letter in answer thereto.


Ernest Lapointe: For a copy of a letter from J. T. Ross, Esq., President of the Quebec Board of Trade, to D. B. Hanna, Esq., President of the Canadian National Railways-, concerning certain facts in connection with the operation of the Government railways and the ocean shipping business of the port of Quebec, and a copy of the answer to said letter.


Ernest Lapointe: *
For a copy of a letter from the Board of Trade of the city of Quebec to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, dated October 24, 1919, concerning the new policy adopted by the ocean mail steamers of not stopping at Quebec in their outward voyage, and a copy of the answer to said letter.


Ernest Lapointe: For a copy of a letter signed by twenty-two senators and members of the House of Commons representing the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, addressed to Sir Robert L. Borden, Prime Minister of Canada, dated September, 1919, recommending the shipment of grain by rail via Quebec; also a copy of the answer to such letter as well as the letters sent by J. T. Ross, Esq., President of the Quebec Board of Trade, to the Minister of Railways and Canals during the months of January and February, 1920, concerning export

of wheat via Quebec, and of the letters of the Minister of Railways and Canals in answer thereto.


Pierre-François Casgrain: For the production of copies of all letters telegrams, papers and correspondence exchanged between the Department of Agriculture and others in reference to the establishment of a Demonstration Farm at Baie St. Paul, in the county of Charlevoix.


Pierre-François Casgrain: For the production of copies of all rules of court made by the different Superior Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction of Canada according to the provisions of section 576 of the Criminal Code.
On motion of Sir George Foster the House returned to the Orders of the Day.
REPORT NOT PRINTED \A)S ORDERED.
On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call your attention, and that of the Government, to an irregularity in the carrying out of the order of the House passed at the last session of Parliament. On the motion of the hon. the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), who was then acting as chairman of the special committee on Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, the House unanimously decided:
That the report of the special committee on Bill No. 10, an Act to amend the Department of Soldiers' Re-establishment Act, the minutes of their proceedings and the evidence taken by them and presented to the House on the 31st October, together with a suitable index to be prepared by the clerk of the committee, be printed in the appendix to the Journals of the present session.
That one thousand extra copies in English and 250 extra copies in French of the said report, minutes, proceedings and evidencebe printed. It is apparent that no French copies are available or were available at any time. Upon inquiry by some hon. members of the secretary of the special committee sitting this year, and of the distribution office, it is found that no French copies are available and it appears that there never were any French copies available. I am now directing your attention, to the subject because some hon. members of the House would like to have copies of this report printed in French


George Green Foster: The Order evidently was not carried out.
Mr. BElLiAND: Evidently.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This matter is entirely
new to me. It has not been before me in any official way. I shall have immediate inquiry made-although I have no doubt 
the facts are as stated by the hon. member-and find out the reason why the order was not obeyed.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. KAY.
On the Olders of the Day:


Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker I rise to a question of privilege.	In the Ottawa Citizen of this
morning I find a statement which is untrue, misleading and absolutely false. In mentioning a few remarks I made yesterday on the Oleomargarine Bill this paper speaks of "Fred. Kay, member for Mississippi." I wish to absolutely deny that I represent any part of the United States in this House whether it be Mississippi, or even Missouri. I am proud to say I was born and bred a Canadian, that I intend * to stay one, and that I have the honour of representing in this House one of the oldest and best counties in the eastern townships, namely Missisquoi.



INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. 18. F. Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture) Bill No. 104 to amend the Inspection and Sale Act was read a second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section I-Section prescribing sizes of apple barrels, fruit boxes, etc; penalty section and section authorizing minister to appoint inspectors, etc., repealed:
Jacques Bureau: We are repealing four
sections of the Act of 1918. Will the minister tell us what these sections are? I see in the marginal note that they prescribe the size of apple barrels, and fruit boxes and provide for penalties in case of contravention. Will the minister read the sections we are repealing? I see by the other section that we are not substituting what we are enacting now for these sections. How will the matter stand when they are repealed?


Mr. TOLMIE:: In 1918 a conference was held of fruit men, package manufacturers and representatives of the Government fruit branch with a view to arriving at some satisfactory arrangement, with regard to fruit packing-the nature and quality of the packages and the different fruits that will be held in these different packages. It was found that the provisions of the Act did not work out very well and it is proposed to repeal section 825, relating to

apple packages and section 326 relating to berry packages with a view to having these governed by regulations so that they can be changed from time to time to meet the changing situation. A recent conference was held of fruit men, Government representatives and fruit package manufacturers and they agreed that this is the best system to follow in order to meet the situation. Sections 320 and 333 (b) refer to penalties and also give the Governor-in-Council power to make regulations.


Mr. FIELDING:: The hon. gentleman
refers to a conference that was held between departmental officials and representatives of the fruit trade. Did that conference represent the fruit interests of all the provinces? The fruit industry is a very wide one; it affects the Atlantic provinces, the Pacific coast, and to some extent Ontario and Quebec.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I am informed by the
representative of the fruit branch that this was a very representative meeting.


William Stevens Fielding: (Were representatives
of the Nova Scotia fruit growing industry present?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I will be able to find that out definitely for the hon. gentleman.


William Stevens Fielding: All I want to know is whether they concur in what is being done.


Jacques Bureau: If I understand the minister the Act of 1918 laid down rules as to the package of apples, berries, etc. To-day this power is being taken away from Parliament and it is proposed to give authority to certain officials of the department to control this matter by regulations that shall be adopted by the department. I must again make a complaint that I have made before. We should have before us sections 325 and 326 of the Inspection and Sale Act of 1918. As it is we do not know what the purport of those sections is. If the sections were printed on one side of the Bill we could gather their purport at a glance and readily comprehend what changes it is proposed to make. As far as I can see it is now contemplated to take away jurisdiction from Parliament and vest it in the minister or the officials of his department. I would like to know the nature of the provisions in question and in what respect they were found defective by the meeting of the fruit growers as my hon. friend has just stated. What particular regulation is complained of by the Fruit 'Growers' Association? In these sections it is stated what the dimensions of the package should be and how the apples should be packed. If the provisions of the law as they stand are defective why not make the correction here, instead of requiring Parliament to abandon the right of making regulations for the packing of fruit and vesting the power in the officials of the department.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall clause one carry?


Jacques Bureau: No, I want an answer to the question I have just put to the minister.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I might say that the dimensions and specifications of the various fruit packages contained in these sections were unanimously approved, as I said before, at a meeting of delegates from the various provinces held in Ottawa on March 26, 1918, and were embodied in Bill No. 108 which was passed on May 24 of that year. It has since been demonstrated that owing to the highly technical character of these sections, which have to do with the dimensions, capacity, and quality of material in some of the containers, the manufacturers have found it difficult, in some cases, to meet all the requirements.


Jacques Bureau: The minister has now at his desk an official of his department to advise him. In order that the official in question may understand what I mean I might repeat that as a result of a''conference of fruit growers the law of 1918 was passed. I want to know in what particular respect the fruit growers complained against the regulations which were enacted by Parliament?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: One of the objections was that in Nova Scotia it was necessary to increase the length of the stave and widen the capacity of the barrel-it being of soft wood-so as to contain the same amount as the hardwood barrel.


William Stevens Fielding: Would imy hon. friend be able now to answer the question I troubled him with a moment ago as to whether at the latest conference the fruit growers of Nova Scotia were represented?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It was a Dominion-wide representation.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a very general answer, but sometimes a conference with Dominion-wide representation is not attended by representatives from all sections. I desire to know whether the fruit growers of Nova Scotia were represented, and if so by whom.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In this case Nova Scotia was represented by Mr. McMahon, and the secretary of the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association.


William Stevens Fielding: Those are very excellent gentlemen, and I thank my hon. friend for the information. I am satisfied myself, and I am sure the House is equally satisfied that the hon. gentleman has only good objects in proposing these changes. The minister will see, however, that he is rather running up against-the sentiment of the House, shall 1 call it? There has been a good deal of talk in recent times with respect to government by Order in Council-


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: -in fact, a few days ago an hon. gentleman on the Government side spoke very strongly against the ministry undertaking to do things by regulation. It is a very embarrassing question, but I think my hon. friend's object is good; and with the assurance that the fruit growers of my own province have been consulted in the matter, I have no desire to do otherwise than give my consent to the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: It is not a question with me of consulting the fruit growers of Quebec, but it is a question of principle. What reason has the minister for taking into his own hands the power of regulating the packing of fruit in Canada? Did anybody ask for this alteration?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: The only reason the minister gives is that the regulations enacted after the conference of 1918 will force the Nova Scotia people to lengthen the staves of their barrels. If that is the only thing that has given rise to the proposed change, I would propose that we legislate so as to allow the Nova Scotia fruit growers to have a package which will conform with the usage heretofore followed in that province, and to have smaller barrels-to pack their fruit in. I am not willing to abandon the privileges of Parliament simply for the purpose of shortening the staves of a barrel by one-half or three-quarters of an inch. I would not consent to the changes proposed except the minister were able to show that they were demanded by the fruit growers throughout the Dominion. It appears, however, that the only objection comes from Nova Scotia that it would involve shortening the staves in the barrels there. I do not think that is sufficient.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The change in the barrel is not due to any personal whim of either the -minister or any of the officials of the fruit branch, but to a request from Nova Scotia that the barrel be standardized.


Mr. McCOIG:: Will the barrel he of the same size in Nova Scotia as in the other provinces under the new regulation?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The same capacity.


Jacques Bureau: What is the use of the
change? If Nova Scotia is forced to change its barrel the minister certainly cannot allege that that change is required because Nova Scotia is affected by the legislation.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: In Nova Scotia, where soft wood is used both for heads and staves, it is necessary to increase the length of staves in order to secure the legal capacity. The experience of the Fruit Branch is that these matters are of a highly technical nature and that it is far more practicable to have them adjusted after consulting the growers and others interested than to wait for a session of Parliament.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: Has Nova Scotia now the same size barrel as Ontario?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The same capacity.


James Alexander Robb: The legislation of 1918 was not put through hastily; it was preceded by careful consultation with the different fruit growers throughout all the provinces. Now, a year later, the minister suggests another change, not so much at the instance of the fruit growers and fruit dealers as at the instance of those who manufacture the barrels and packages. Have we any assurance that the minister will not soon come before us again asking us for further changes? All these changes involve additional cost and add to the high cost of living. Barrels that were used in prevous years in the domestice trade can be used again this year. Barrels are very scarce and are very expensive, the price having almost doubled within the last five years. The minister may enact legislation that will make absolutely useless the barrels that were used last year, and tihat additional cost will ultimately come back on the consumer. It seems to me that the minister should make haste slowly and not grant legislation from year to year simply to suit the whims of the manufacturer of packages.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The whole movement is designed to standardize fruit barrels all over the continent. It was made at the instiga-

tion of the fruit growers themselves. Sufficient time is permitted for them to use up their old packages. I am not anxious, and I know that the department is not anxious, to make unnecessary changes, but if a change would be a distinct improvement upon what we have had, I cannot guarantee that I will not take action.


John Albert Sexsmith: I wish to register my protest against too much legislation by Order in Council. This is a very serious matter. As my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) has pointed out, the barrels that were in the trade last year will be used again this year. Barrels that were formerly purchased at 22 cents now cost from 80 cents to $1 each, and that is quite an item to the fruit growers. Moreover, the fruit growers have never any knowledge of what may happen. Orders in Council are published in the Canada Gazette and only one fruit grower in a thousand ever sees them. The fruit grower may be proceeding on the idea that the regulations are the same as they were last year, whereas they may have been changed over night.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I have pointed out that the grower is given ample time in which to use the barrels in his possession. There is always a free and full discussion before any action of this kind is taken. I have stated that this legislation was discussed with the fruit growers in every province of the Dominion that is interested in fruit growing.


Jacques Bureau: If this consultation with the fruit growers resulted in anything definite, the minister ought to know about it by this time. Surely we are entitled to know what changes he proposes when he takes into his own hands the power of making regulations. If he does not know, we should let the Bill stand until he does know. If he does know, he should tell us what changes are proposed. I do not think that we ought to relinquish our right to legislate in these matters and permit them to be dealt with by Order in Council.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the clause carry?


Jacques Bureau: Lost.
Section 1 carried on division.
On section 2-power to make regulations extended:


Jacques Bureau: What is the section which is here repealed?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may make such regulations as he considers necessary in order 129
to secure the efficient enforcement and operation of this Part, and may by such regulations provide for the imposition of penalties not exceeding thirty dollars on any person offending against them; and the regulations so made shall be in force from the date of their publication in The Canada Gazette, or from such other date as is specified in the proclamation in that behalf; and the violation of any such regulation shall be deemed an offence against this Part and punishable as such.


Jacques Bureau: 
Simon Fraser Tolmie: The repeal of sections 330 and 330B is desired in order that the penalties may be made uniform. At the present time the Act is inconsistent as regards the maximum penalty that may be imposed on any person violating any of the regulations. The Order in Council dated September 14, 1901, passed under authority of the Fruit Marks Act, then in force, gave the Governor in Council authority to make regulations for the enforcement of the Act and to impose penalties not exceeding $50, while section 333B provides a maximum penalty of $30.	,


Jacques Bureau: I do not see any inconsistency. The Bill provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations and provide for a penalty not exceeding $30. If I understand aright the reading of that typewritten sheet, the minister says that an Order in Council was passed providing for a penalty of $30. To-day this section goes further; it reads:
(d) to prescribe penalties rot exceeding fifty dollars, and, in default of payment of any such penalty, imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month, for the violation of the said regulations, which penalties shall be recoverable upon summary conviction under part XV of the Criminal Code.
We are to-day taking away from Parliament the right to regulate a matter of Trade and Commerce which concerns all the people of Canada and which is, therefore, a matter that should be known by all the people of Canada. As was rightly said by an hon. gentleman opposite a few minutes ago, while it is all very well to promulgate the decress of the Governor in Council by publication in the Canada Gazette, the Canada Gazette is read by very few people except those who are immediately interested. Therefore, I do not think it is fair that the Governor in Council should have the right to make regulations which heretofore have been made by Parliament, and to have the power to send people to jail if they contravene these regulations when, as



a matter of fact, the people who contravene them have no opportunity, I might say, to know what the regulations are, and the point that these publications in the official Gazette are not seen by the people the same as laws that are enacted by Parliament, is a good point. If every fruit grower in Canada has to take the official Gazette in order to find out whether he is packing or shipping fruit within the four corners of the section of the Statute, you are asking from that man something that is practically impossible, and you reserve to yourself the right, if that man does not conform with those regulations, to fine him $50 or send him to jail. I would call the thing iniquitous.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: There is no lack of publicity about any new regulations. They are published in the agricultural and horticultural press, which is obtainable in all parts of the country, and then at all the fruit meetings they are very fully discussed before and after the regulations are put into force, so that all the fruit growers have a very full knowledge of the law. As regards prosecution, no prosecution is carried out unless there are clear-cut grounds of fraud or of an attempt to defeat the law.


Mr. DEVLIN:: I should like to second
the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau). The great trouble in this country is that we have had too much Government by Order in Council, and the people now want a little bit of responsibility by the Government. It has been the custom of this Government, from its very inception, simply to pass on to somebody else the responsibility which it should assume. We have had instances galore of Government irresponsibility through Order in Council. In other words, to make myself clear, hon. gentlemen opposite who form the Government to-day, who are responsible to the people by the constitution of this country, have preferred to make by Order in Council all their regulations, even regulations extending the Acts of this Parliament. We have had it in the case of oleomargarine; we have had it in regard to all the important legislation that we have had this session. What is the important legislation we have had? We have had amendments to the Opium and Drug Act, to the Oleomargarine Act; we have had amendments to certain Acts which have had for their purpose to legislate us right into heaven. The next thing we know is that some Order in Council will be passed which will

transfer us, even without death, right into heaven. The people of this country want to know the legislation that is being passed; they want to be familiar with each part of the legislation, and I would point out to the Minister of Agriculture, Who is a new minister and who is, perhaps, not as familiar as he might be with conditions prevailing throughout the whole of Canada, that the less Government we have by Order in Council, the better for the Government, the better for the people who support the Government and the better for the people for whom the Government is supposed to act. We should not have Orders in Council changing, perhaps radically, portions of the legislation now sought to be passed, changing regulations which should be known first to the representatives of the people in order that they may give their opinion, because we have in this House men sent here from all portions of Canada to represent different classes. We have here any number of members like myself representing agricultural communities. We have men like my hon. friends down at the other end of the Chamber representing the National Progressive party. In some parts of the country they call themselves United Farmers; they are National Progressives. They have not yet begun to act under Order in Council, but the Minister of Agriculture has. He is hardly in the Government before he proposes to change the legislation of this country by Order in Council. I call the minister's attention to this, and I hope he will suspend the operation of his Bill until such time as he finds out some other way by which the representatives of the people may pass legislation than by Order in Council.


Jacques Bureau: We repeal here two sections, sections 325 and 326. Section 325 relates to fruit packages and section 326 to berries and currants. In the same Act of 1918, section 328 provides:
Every person who, by himself or through the agency of any other person, violates any of the provisions of sections 320 and 321 of this Act, shall be liable, upon summary conviction, for the first offence, to a fine not exceeding $25 and not less than $10 ; for the second offence, to a fine not exceeding $50; and not less than $25.
And so on.
-and to imprisonment.
The penalties are graded as the offence is continued; but under this we abandon the right of punishing violators of the law, and we give to the Governor in Coun-

cil power to make such regulations as will land in jail the man who violates section 333B, if he does not pay his fine. I again object to this section, and I think, as my hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) said, that we had enough of this legislation by Order in Council during the war. Those were abnormal times, and in those times were willing to allow a great deal of latitude to the Governor in Council so that he might be able to do all sorts of things. But to-day the war is over, and we want to bring things back to normal as quickly as possible and that will not be brought about by continuing the same system as was continued during the war, namely, of curtailing the rights of Parliament and increasing the powers of the Governor in Council in regard to various matters. I want to register my protest against this provision. If sections 325 and 326 required to be remedied they should be remedied here. If the minister has discovered any flaws in the working of the Act, let him state them to the committee. We are asked to hand over all our powers to the minister and he will not tell us what changes he proposes to make by regulations, or what flaws have been discovered in the Act. Parliament is certainly entitled to know these things, and if the minister would give us an explanatory statement we should be able to judge whether it was necessary that he and his department should be the sole judges of what legislation ought to be passed concerning fruit growing, fruit packing and fruit shipping.


James Alexander Robb: In view of the opposition
that has developed to this legislation not only from this side of the House, but from supporters fo the ministry, may I suggest to the minister that it would expedite business if he would postpone further consideration of this Bill, and have it referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. STACEY:: Hon. members who have
knowledge of the matter which is referred to in this clause of the Bill will readily realize the importance of some such step as is now proposed by the minister. I happen to know that the Dominion Government in conjunction with certain Provincial Governments is seeking to standardize containers of certain fruits which are produced in this Dominion. It is very essential that there should be uniformity throughout the entire country in this matter. It would be almost ludicrous, were it not so serious, to hear hon. members speaking of determining here in this House what shall be the size 1291
of certain fruit containers. I venture to1 say that there is only a small number of men here in touch with the fruit business who are in a position to form any definite judgment upon these matters, even though they be the representatives of the people. If those who are directly engaged in the business throughout the various provinces can by co-ordination and co-operation with the Dominion authorities come to an unanimous conclusion regarding size of containers and other matters, that is the goal to be reached, and that I am satisfied is the purpose of this Bill. It is, from my point of view, entirely aside from the question to call this proposed legislation "legislation by OrdeT in Council." The purpose of these amendments is to secure fair play for all, in the interests of the industry and in the interests of consumers. Hence the desire to secure uniformity. That is the object of the Bill, and I sincerely hope that it will carry.
Mr, SUTHERLAND:	Notwithstanding
the remarks which have just been made and the risk I may be incurring of being considered one of those who have no knowledge or experience in connection with this matter, I must say that I do not view with approval the clause which is now before the committee, authorizing the Governor in Council to fix the dimensions and capacity of all containers. We were told by the minister when the first clause was under consideration that a uniform container or barrel had been decided on for all Canada. That being the case, I do not see any reason why it should not be mentioned in the Bill. The minister has told us that these regulations are all published in the agricultural and horticultural press of the country, and that those who are interested in the business will familiarize themselves with the regulations which may be enacted. People under certain circumstances may possibly afford to go it blind, provided they have absolute confidence in the wisdom of such a policy, but under present conditions, and in connection with a measure of this kind, I do not think it is advisable or in the public interest to be continually changing the style or size of these containers. I think we ought to have a uniform package for fruits, and it should be mentioned in the Bill so that people would know whether or not they were violating one of the statutes of this country. To do these things by means of regulations which are not yet known is surely not in keeping with the form of government we have in this country. We are asked to pass legislation delegating certain powers to the Government,

without any knowledge of the regulations that are to be drawn up. If that system was adopted in'connection with all the business that came before Parliament, we might just as well stay home and let the Government carry on the business itself. Person^ ally, I think this is a case where we should state clearly and definitely what the size of the containers shall be. Then people would know that the size was fixed by statute, and would not be changed by regulations which might hereafter be passed.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member (Mr. Stacey) seems to think that because a man is not a fruit grower he should not take part in anything that interests the people of this country. When he told us that we knew nothing about fruit growing, I do not know whether he wanted us to infer that he did know something about it and was in fact getting up and addressing the committee as an authority. If it is really true, I am glad to know that he knows something about something.
We do not stand here in the interests of the fruit growers or the makers of packages. We stand heTe for principle, in the interests of the taxpayers of Canada. This is not simply a case of determining the size of barrels or boxes for the packing of fruit. Parliament passed certain legislation after a conference with the fruit growers of Canada. They certainly know something about the growing and packing and shipping of fruit, as much no doubt, as my hon. friend (Mr. Stacey). They are also taxpayers of this country, and they have sent representatives here to this Parliament to exercise the powers which the constitution gives them and not to delegate those powers to the Governor in Council. We are here to represent the people and legislate for them. My hon. friend (Mr. Stacey) may choose to carry on the business of this country by Order in Council, but I, for my part, will not accept that principle. I think this Bill is wrong in principle because it asks Parliament to divest itself of rights which it has exercised, and wisely exercised, after taking all due precautions by consulting those interested in this industry in this country. The legislation which was	passed	in 1919 was assented
to by all the fruit growers of this country. If in the working out of the Act there has been discovered any flaw or something wrong, I say we are entitled to know what those flaws are, and what it is we are asked to remedy. I think we should have a statement from the minister as to the evils he desires to correct, and

I say further that if is the duty of this Parliament to provide the remedy and not divest itself of its responsibility and privilege of enacting legislation with respect to these matters.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I should like to give a
little more information. I have already referred to the apple barrel which will contain 7056 cubic inches. It has been found necessary to make a change with respect to the berry baskets, because the express companies practically gave the fruit men to understand that they would cease to carry the fruit in the old package on account of the loss entailed. Under the old conditions the packages contained sloping sides. They are now being made nearly straight in the sides and will contain the same quantities as before, 11 quarts and 6 quarts. This safer carriage of fruit of course means cheaper fruit for every one. These conferences are held by the fruit men and all these matters are carefully discussed with representatives from all over the country, and there is no doubt that the delegates that come to these meetings have previously consulted all the fruit men in their respective districts, so that you really get the opinion of the best fruit men from all over Canada. I know, as a civil servant who has spent a number of years in the Health of Animal and Live Stock branches, that in many cases circumstances have occurred that made Orders in Council necessary, for very serious losses might have taken place had matters been held up until such time as legislation could come before Parliament. I do not wish in any way to push this matter unduly. I desire to do the right thing by hon. members, and if in their opinion this legislation should be referred to the committee on agriculture I am quite willing to accept that view.


Georges Henri Boivin: 'Shall the clause carry?


Jacques Bureau: I understand that the minister is willing to refer the matter to the committee on agriculture, and that appears to be the opinion of all hon. members. It is desirable that we should have a thorough discussion of the subject in the light of further information.


Georges Henri Boivin: If it is desired to refer the Bill to the select standing committee on agriculture there must be a motion to report progress. When the Bill is before the House it can be referred by the House to that committee.


Mr. TOLMIIE:: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise and report progress.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. TO'UMIE: I move, Mr. Speaker, that Bill No. 104, which we have just had under consideration be referred to the committee on agriculture.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion can, of
course, be entertained only by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The Houe resumed from May 4, consideration in committee of Bill No. 12 (Hon. Mr. Guthrie) respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When progress was reported upon this Bill on Tuesday evening, all of the clauses and schedules had been read and considered.


Jacques Bureau: Before we proceed,
Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to draw the attention of the Acting Solicitor General to the fact that although he made the statement last night that the term "election papers" had been used in several clauses, I have failed to find those words after a perusal of the Bill? I ran through the Bill hurriedly this morning but could not find the words "election papers" anywhere. Would the minister indicate in what particular sections those words appear?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: At the present moment I can only ask my hon. friend to compare his copy of the Bill with the copy at the Clerk's table. In some twelve or thirteen places we have struck out the words "ballot papers" and replaced them with the words "election papers." These would appear in all clauses relating to the return which has to be made by the Chief Electoral Officer, and in those clauses which provide for the sending of papers from that officer to the various ridings.


Jacques Bureau: I read' the whole Bill
through this morning but I could not find the words "election papers."


Hugh Guthrie: You have not amended your copy as we have gone along. )


Georges Henri Boivin: When progress was reported last evening all of the clauses and schedules has been read and considered. Paragraph (k) of clause 2, clauses 19, 29,
32, 37, 44, 45, 63, 76 and 101, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Gloucester to clause 37, the amendment proposed by the hon. the Acting Solicitor General to clause 44, and several forms in the schedules to the Bill had been allowed to stand for further consideration. The other clauses and forms had been adopted. Clauses 19 and 16 which provide for the expenditure of money by the Government still await the -approval by the House of the required resolution. We have now reached clause 101. Shall that clause carry?


Mr. TWEEDIE:: With the consent of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I should like to revert to clause 39, which has been passed,, for the purpose of submitting an amendment.	.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is, of course, only by unanimous consent that this motion can be made. The hon. member moves that the committee'return to clause 39, which has already been agreed to. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Some hon. MEMBERS : Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Clause 39 refers to the disqualification of candidates. In the consideration of the subsection which had relation to campaign expenses of candidates, a discussion arose incidentally touching the subject of agreements which are in the nature of a recall, and at that time I submitted that we should have legislation on the statute which would cover that point, so as to disqualify from holding a seat in the House any man who signed his resignation in advance of an election or wdro entered into any agreement which in itself might operate as a recall, placing in the hands of a committee, -whether large or small, the power to demand his resignation. Undoubtedly there has been an endeavour, especially in the West, to engraft upon our constitution something which is not in the least degree adapted to it or to the laws of any of the provinces. And while repeated efforts have been made to induce Provincial Governments in the West to enact legislation in the' nature of a recall, something of that character having been done in Manitoba, although I believe it was subsequently disallowed by the Privy Council the majority of the provinces have refused to go that length, but have introduced legislation in the form of an initiative and referendum. By the initiative and referendum the electors are given the power to draft initiatory legislation and forward it to the Provincial Legis-
/

latures for adoption. The referendum could thus take all legislation from the Government and submit it to the people for their approval.
These are not the questions that I propose to discuss to-day but I intend to confine myself to the amendment to this section which I propose to introduce and which will deal simply with the question of the recall in so far as it may be made a disqualification for any candidate at an election. I think that the question of the recall, whether it may have justification, or whether it may have advocates, cannot be introduced into this country but when we get down to the scientific recall which has been adopted in a great many of the western states we find that the power which is given by the recall is not reposed in the hands of any individual, and it is not reposed in the hands of any committee which may be selected toy any particular group, but the recall, no matter whether the percentage of those who are required to sign the petition for recall be large or small, is a power which, in theory, is reposed in the body of the electors and the electors as a whole are entitled to exercise it.
What do we find to be the system which is being adopted in this country? There is no pretence whatever to repose power in the majority of the people. There is no pretence to repose in the people, as electors, the right to circulate and sign .a petition to recall a man from the legislature but the right is exercised as the result of a bargain. The man who is a candidate in many cases is asked to sign his recall before the people have even had a chance to vote whether he shall represent them or not. In the case which we have cited in this House by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould), we find that an agreement is entered into between the candidate and a committee of fifteen men. These fifteen men are not the choice of the people of the country. They are generally men who are closely allied with a political organization and the object of the agreement is that that committee of men who are bound by party ties shall exercise a jurisdiction over the man who has been elected to represent the people in the House of Commons. As I pointed out before, I believe that any such method as that simply results in the stultification of the man who occupies a seat in this House. When he comes here he must realize that, if he is an honourable man and has entered into an agreement with these fifteen men, or with any committee, he is bound to obey the dictates of

those fifteen men and if they say: "You shall vote for some particular piece of legislation," he must either violate his agreement and become a dishonourable man or follow the dictates or instructions which they give to him. It is fettering him in deciding the course that he shall pursue, and it is fettering him in the performance of the duty -which he owes to the people as a whole. The results which were pointed out by Edmund Burke in a speech which he made to the electors of Bristol when he was withdrawing from the contest there, are working out in the same way in this connection. Mr. Burke says:
Let me say, with plainness, I who am no longer in a public character, that, if, by a fair, by an indulgent, by a gentlemanly behaviour to our representatives, we do not give confidence to their minds and a liberal scope to their understandings, if we do not permit our members to act upon a very enlarged view of things, we shall at length infallibly degrade our national representation into a confused and scuffling bustle of local agency.
A man who signs any such agreement with a committee is simply a delegate to this House and-not the representative of the people of his constituency or a representative of the peojjle of the whole of Canada. If the people of this country desire the recall, I submit, it is their duty to bring about such a change in our constitution as will permit it but it is not their right to attack and subvert the constitution and try to introduce into our system something that is unconstitutional; or to try to defeat the ends of our constitution or to make the House of Commons which is supposed to be representative, unrepresentative. When they get the constitution amended so that the recall may be properly adopted under it it will be time for us to determine whether or not we shall have the recall in this country. Personally I think it would be a very unsafe thing to have brought into the political life of Canada. I submit that any of these agreements which are entered into at the present time, any recall which may be signed in advance, should be ground for disqualifying the man who signed it to hold a seat in this House because he does not come as the servant of the people as a whole but simply comes as the delegate or agent of a few people in whose hands he places his resignation, or with whom he has entered into such an agreement. I do not propose to take any longer time. I am bringing this before the House for the purpose of getting a free expression of opinion and I shall now read my amendment. I beg to move:

That clause 39 be amended by inserting, as paragraph (h) of subclause 1, the following words:
"(h) Persons who have signed any agreement, whether amounting to a resignation, a recall or otherwise, which would in any manner whatsoever limit the independence of such person in the event of his being elected member of the House of Commons."


William Stevens Fielding: With my hon. friend
from Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) I have little admiration for the recall. In these progressive days, so-called, there is a demand among many excellent citizens for a plan of political action which is described as the initiative, referendum and recall. I do not find myself able to join in that demand. The referendum is occasionally necessary. We have it in our municipal affairs, we have it in the Scott Act, and we are going to have it under the Act which we adopted last session in connection with the question of prohibition throughout the Dominion. We are all in a measure joining in the referendum from time to time. The initiative has less to recommend it, although I speak with great respect because I know very many people in the country regard it as one of the things which modern politics require.
In regard to the recall, I entirely disapprove of it. I have no sympathy whatever with the recall, but why should I prevent any man in any part of Canada supporting the recall system if he wants'it? I regard it as an unwise thing on the part of the farmers, but if they are pleased to regard it as a part of wisdom, and they want to establish the recall amongst themselves, I do not see why we should by legislation deny them that privilege.
I may think it is not the best form of legislation; I may think we would be very unwise in passing it; I would not vote for a candidate who signed a recall pledge; I think good reasons could be shorwn why the recall ought not to commend itself to the best judgment of the country; I Tegard it as a matter entirely belonging to-shall I say the internal economy of the Farmers' Party; tout if it pleases them I do not see why they should not he allowed to have it. We may do very many things which in the eyes of our neighbours are unreasonable and foolish, but we would not legislate against them. If the farmers say they will not vote for a red-headed man I might think it 'is unwise, hut if it pleases them it does not hurt me-let them have the privilege if they choose. They may say they will not vote foT a man who wears good clothes- we have these days a movement for the wearing of overalls-and they will only vote
for the man who belongs to the Old Clothes Brigade. That is perhaps very commendable, but I do not think it is a matter for legislation in any shape or form. I strongly urge upon my hon. friend from Calgary -with whose views concerning the recall I largely sympathize-not to treat it as a matter for legislation at all. Let us leave the recall to the people of this country; let them try it a (bit. I believe the best thing we can do in the case of some of these so-called modern reforms is to give the people a chance to try them out and they will discover very often that they do not produce the great results they hoped for. With reference to the recall, 'if it pleases our farmer friends to have it as part of their platform, let them have it within themselves, and I think they will get tired of it eventually.


Mr. R. H. HALBERT (Ontario, N.):: 1 think my hon. friend (Mr. Tweedie) is mistaken as to the working of the recall. In the first place, no committee has a right to recall the member who has been elected until they have had placed in their hands a petition signed by from sixty to seventy-five per cent of the electors of that riding; and for my part I would not want to hold a seat in the House if seventy-five per cent of the people in my constituency did not wish me to be here. No doubt some hon. gentlemen fear the idea of a recall because it might prevent them from getting a judgeship or a seat in the Senate. Take it in connection with the running of a business. Suppose I were a business man, and . my hon. friend from Calgary came along to me and said he wanted to hire a manager. Let us suppose a conversation took place along this line: "Halbert, will you take the job?" "Yes, under certain conditions." Very well, name your conditions." "My conditions are: First, that you engage me for four years and in that time you cannot sack me. If in that four years I think my services are worth more to you than they are at present, and I wish to have my salary raised, you must not object. Or, if 1 see a better job in those four years I wish to be at liberty to Tesign. I will take that better position and you can have no comeback." If I hired a man under such an arrangement as that it would be up to my friends to look after me, because I would [DOT] certainly need their care. But that is the way in which members of Parliament have in the past been elected, and that is why the recall finds a place in our platform. However, my reason for speaking was to

put the hon. member Tight in this respect- that no committee of ten or twelve has any power to put the recall into effect until they have had presented to them a petition signed by sixty or seventy-five per cent of the electors of that riding. And if that percentage of the electors do not want the member to remain in Parliament I do not see why he should stay there. I can see the fear which some hon. gentlemen entertain. If I may use the expression without irreverence, they have had the fear of God put into their hearts by reason of the adoption of the recall platform. So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing to return home when seventy-five per cent of the electors in my riding say so. In conclusion, in order to put the hon. member right upon another point, let me say that I did not sign any recall-I was not asked to.


Mr. D. L. REDMAN (Calgary E.):: I am not clear as to what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Halbert) meant by stating that if sixty to seventy-five per cent of the people of his constituency were opposed to him he would not wish to retain his seat. Let me say further that I do not believe that any such percentage of the electors in his constituency voted for that hon. gentleman when he was elected some few months ago.
Before proceeding further with a discussion of this matter, I think it is well that we should clearly recognize the difference between the real or radical recall and the signed resignation with which we are dealing to-day. The recall-which usually goes with the initiative and the referendum- is a matter of legislation, and may form the subject of an Act introduced by a ministry to deal with the election of members of Parliament. That policy is now in existence in many of the states of the American Union. In general terms it provides that sometimes twenty-five per cent, and sometimes fifty per cent of the voters in any constituency may petition for the holding of a new election, and w'hen the requisite petition has been duly filed a new election is held. A majority vote will then elect either the sitting member or any candidate who runs against him. That is the way in whcih the real, or radical, recall operates. It has been in existence for many years in various states of the Union, and even to-day after years of experience opinion is greatly divided as to the benefit which has been derived from that legislation. Perusing a book of Professor Barnett, of the university of Oregon, written in 1915, dealing with the results of the

operation of the recall in that state, I find he cites three cases which may be briefly stated as follows : First, the case of a mayor who was asked to resign on the supposition that he had diverted public funds from their proper channel; but it was pointed out that the real reason was that he had wished to open certain streets which some property owners had closed, and they taking advantage of the recall had brought these charges against him and had him defeated. In the next case a charge of immorality was brought against the official, and it turned out that the real question at issue was a fight between two banks which had had control of the city for some time. The third case was where an official was accused of diverting public funds but it transpired that the real reason for the demand for his recall was that the antiprohibition forces wished to get rid of him on account of his stringent enforcement of the prohibition law. Let me say that I am not making an argument against a scientific, radical recall; I am simply pointing out the nature of the first three cases which arose in the state referred to. If you refer to the book in question you will find that the same conditions prevailed in case after case-that is, the recall was practically never used to get rid of an improper official, but was improperly used by peopje who had special financial reasons for invoking its use, and that its use was accompanied by gross misrepresentations of the character and efficiency of the man who was holding the position and by the inflaming of public passion. It is extremely^ doubtful whether any good resulted from the use of the system. However, that sort of recall is at least an attempt to give the people greater control over their representatives, and it is necessary that the people should have some way of getting rid of improper officials. As to the value oi the real recall we are not to-day asked to vote for that principle; we are dealing today with an entirely different thing-the signed resignation. The signed resignation is as far from the recall as the north pole is from the south. The recall is an attempt at radical and advanced legislation; in the signed resignation I can see nothing but an attempt to perfect a political machine. No other conclusion can be come to. It is not a attempt to give the people greater power over their representatives; it is an attempt to defeat the will of the people and to take away from them the representative which they have just elected. In making these remarks I am not speaking of any arrange-

ment by any member of the House although the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) the other day stated that he had signed a resignation.


Mr. GOULD:: I beg to differ from my hon. friend.


Daniel Lee Redman: Well, he said he signed an agreement of that nature. He did not state the nature of the agreement and so we do not know what the nature of it is; or whether it is harmful or beneficial. But I am now discussing the problem itself as an abstract problem.
As the member for West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) has said, a member elected to this House is not necessarily only the representative of his own constituency. I think it is his duty first to lay before Parliament the rights and claims and needs of his own constituents, just as any counsel would do on behalf of his clients. But that done, it is his duty, in casting his vote, to have regard to the best interests of Canada as a whole; if necessary, to compromise on the interests or needs of his own copstituents if that must be done in order that legislation in the best interests of Canada as a whole may be passed. That is my conception of the duty of a member of a British Parliament. How would it be possible for a member who had placed in the hands of an individual or a local committee a signed resignation, to represent the best interests of the whole oi Canada? Is it possible for that man to represent all his constituents? Could it even be said that he represents the majority who elected him? While the individual or committee who hold his signed resignation may at the time of the election have had the confidence of or have been in agreement with the majority who elected the member, it does not follow that a year hence or two years hence when new problems come up, new issues have to be faced, this individual or this committee will be in agreement with the majority who elected the member. So that logically, by a process of reasoning to which there can be no answer, the only person or group of persons whom the member who has submitted a signed resignation can be said to represent are those who hold his resignation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have arising in this country new sorts of political parties, and I think that the question of "signed resignations" in relation to these new parties should be discussed. It would be extremely dangerous for political parties the
basis of whose organization is a policy which they 'believe to be in the best interests of the country, to use this signed resignation. That being true it is exceptionally dangerous when the signed resignation is used in the case of a political party whose basic principle is the betterment in their view of an economic class. I think we must accept the principle that that ia the basis of the new political parties that are arising. We may also conclude that members of an economic class party must of necessity legislate in the interests of that economic class. It may be that they will legislate at some time in the interests of all the people of Canada, but on the other hand it may be that the interests of their economic class will be opposed to the interests of all the people. If that be not true, then why do they organize as an economic class? Surely that argument need not be pressed further.
Now, if we have as members of this House representatives of political parties the bases of -which are certain economic principles for economic classes, the committee or individual holding their signed resignations is bound to think solely along the lines of these economic principles. They are not here like the ordinary member, to hear the opinions of other economic classes; they are not here to hear the opinions of the representatives of other parts of Canada. They are away at a distance; they are naturally full of the ideas entertained by their own class, and they will restrain the free action of their member here under threat of filing his resignation with the Speaker if he does not fulfil their orders and act in accordance with what they consider to be the interests of their economic class.
But what are the other classes of this country to do? It may happen that this new formed economic class may have control of the Government of this country although the majority of the people may have voted against them as we see in the province of Ontario to-day. Who is going to take care of the other economic classes? Who is going to take care of the interests of the majority of the people if we have here groups of members who dominate the Government, who have left behind them in the various constituencies of Canada signed resignations and who have to act in exact accord with the local and class viewpoint, of the individuals who hold their resignations?
You may ask, why, if in the past we have never had such legislation as that pro-

. posed by my hon. friend (Mr. Tweedie), it is necessary to ask for it now? For the first time in the history of this country we find a tendency on the part of political parties to use this signed resignation and when we are considering the Franchise Act under which the members of Parliament will in the future be elected, I believe it is the right time to get rid of this signed resignation business. It has nothing to do with the recall. It is, in my opinion, absolutely reactionary, and is brought forward for one reason and one reason only, that is, to perfect a political machine.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: I think we ought
to be careful when dealing with this matter about continually referring to the farmers as though they were entirely responsible for the idea of the recall in this country. Besides, I am not of the opinion that all the farmers of the country are of one thought and of one mind with those who are called the leaders of the farmers in this House. I am also of opinion that as soon as the farmers in general shall have discovered that their leaders are made of clay, a large number of them at all events will change their opinions very considerably. It is their gods that I attack; not the farmers as a class. For instance, I hold in my hand a pamphlet that was issued by the Tory Party in Alberta calling upon not only the farmers of that province, but everybody in the province to support the Opposition at the ensuing election because of their policy on the initiative, referendum and recall. So that our good Tories are as much at fault in that respect as the farmers.
I wish to say a few words with regard to the remarks made by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), who says that "if the farmers want the recall, why, let them have it; if anybody wants anything, why, do not dispute it." I myself was to a certain extent in favour of the recall when I had not nearly as broad a view of politics as I have acquired since I came to Ottawa and have had opportunity to study the science of Government at closer range. What I see in the recall, whatever may be its form, is an intimidation of the member, who is asked to follow only a particular course and who must resign his seat if he does not follow that course. The clause that was put in the platform of the Conservative Party in Alberta with regard to the recall is as follows :
The recall Is a method by which electors may exercise direct control over a representative. If

he acts contrary to their will, he may, on petition of a certain percentage of the electors of his constituency, be suspended from office. A new election is then declared, at which the so-called representative may stand. The operation of the initiative and referendum tends to lessen the necessity for the exercise of this right.
Mr. Chairman, if. the recall in any form whatsoever means that you may have byelections all over the country at any time, it is bad even from the point of view of expenditure. But that is of minor importance when you consider that the recall appeals to the intellectual and moral weakness of the candidate, because it characterizes his whole course with a lack of courage in that he may not use his intelligence and his judgment for the best interests of Canada. It so controls or intimidates him that he may vote in this House against his conscience, and when he does that, it is a form of corruption. The recall in any form whatsoever is bad, and contrary to the opinion of my hon. friend ('Mr. Fielding), I say that if the recall being bad in its essence, it then becomes the duty of this free Parliament to condemn it, since it is going to bring about in this country a condition of things which is not desirable. I shall bq pleased to support the amendment.


Mr. BEST:: I wish to support the amendment because I believe there is not in this House a member who is elected to represent-only his own constituents, as distinguished from the people of Canada as a whole. The opinion of the people is that every member, who is elected by a majority of the voters of his constituency, is elected also to represent the Dominion of Canada as a whole. I was rather surprised to hear my hon friend (Mr. Fielding) say: "If the farmers want this, why not let them have it?" The hon. member can surely see that the farmers are just as much divided in opinion on public questions as other classes in this House. We have many farmers sitting on the other end of the Chamber and others distributed throughout both sides of the House, and on every question that comes up in the House, the farmers are divided, just the same as hon. members in other pursuits in life, so that the farmers are not all of one opinion. I understood the hon. member for Ontario North (Mr. Halbert) to say that he would not want to sit in this House unless he knew that from 60 to 75 per cent of the people in the constituency that he represents were in favour of his being here.


Robert Henry Halbert: I said that if 75 per cent of the electors of my riding signed a petition

asking for my resignation, I would not wish to sit here in this House. .


John Best: If that be so, the hon. member should have resigned before he took his seat because much less than 60 per cent of the electors voted for him. That people should want to have a law permitting the election of a member by a majority of say one vote-and that means a good deal less than 60 per cent of the electorse-and at the same time stating that 60 per cent should be required to recall him, is something that I cannot understand. As regards .the recall, I know that, in the case of provincial members, I heard a candidate say on the day of the nomination: " My resignation is now in the hands of the icommittee." So his resignation was there. I do not know why we should have in this country a law whereby in the case of a member who is elected by a majority of five or ten in his constituency, should have to resign, if ten or twelve men should get sore on him for something he lias done, perhaps in the best interest of the country, they should be able to get together all that voted for him and five or six more-and that would not be 60 per cent of the electors of the constituency. Hon. members are elected for a term of five years at the longest, and one man cannot ruin this country in that time even if he makes some mistakes. There is not in the whole Dominion any constituency in which nearly all the electors think that their representative votes or does wrong on any particular occasion. Therefore, it is very wrong to have any law that will allow a few people, if they get sore on any member, to cause him to resign his seat, thus bringing on another election. Such a system is vicious and should not be allowed. I therefore, heartily support the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Tweedie).


Oliver Robert Gould: I am glad to have an opportunity of making a few remarks to the committee upon this question. It seems to me that I have been the direct cause of this amendment, and of the speeches that have been made supporting it. It has occurred to me to ask why, seeing that this has been a public question in all parts of the Dominion of Canada for fifteen years, the hon. gentleman who moves this amendment today has not thought so before, although he had many opportunities to do so. If he is now, as he says, asking in the interest of truth and justice, why has he so long refrained from bringing the matter to the attention of the House.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Might I be allowed to
make a correction? My hon. friend (Mr. Gould) is not the direct cause of this. This is simply a question of principle, and the reason it was not taken up in the House before was that there are for the first time members holding seats in this House who have acknowledged on the floor of this House that they have signed such an agreement as to resigning.


Oliver Robert Gould: I accept the hon. gentleman's explanation, but I did not wish to infer at all that this amendment has been submitted in any spirit of vindictiveness. I appreciate very much the manner in which the hon. members for both Calgary East (Mr. Redman), and Calgary West (Mr. Tweedie)', presented their arguments. I would again revert to this, that evidence has been submitted today that on the provincial platforms of Alberta, mark you, a Conservative party and mark you further, while they are in opposition-and that suggests the argument that they are equally as pure while they are in opposition as they are while in office [DOT]-approve of the recall. The hon. gentleman for Calgary West has been living in Alberta, and it is not recorded, or at least I have not yet met the evidence, that his voice has ever been raised in provincial politics to denounce this vicious recall which is being advocated by the Tory party.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: If the hon. member had been living in Alberta privately or publicly, he would have known many years ago my feelings on that matter, and they have never changed. I have always opposed that in convention and out of convention.


Oliver Robert Gould: You were .the leader of the Conservative party out there, and yet you allowed that party to adopt that principle in their platform.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: If I may again correct the hon. member, I was not the leader of the Conservative party, and I never would allow any party to which I belong to have any such plank in their platform.


Oliver Robert Gould: Very well. I am, however, pleased that this has come to the surface to-day, and I am also pleased that evidence has been submitted that the Conservatives of Alberta have been more guilty than possibly I have been myself. You try to explain the recall, and again you say "resignation in the hands of the committee." I have a recollection of April 13, wheh I ex-

plained to the House that I had neither signed the recall nor placed my resignation in the hands of the committee. I believe I made a statement in regard to an agreement with the committee and I will give the information once more, that the agreement which I have with the committee is that if they disapprove, they can ask me to come hack and explain, not to resign. The onus of responsibility is on the committee in the first place, and I maintain that it is in the interest of good legislation that all the members of this Parliament should be under a similar arrangement, I have a committee of fifteen who are keeping themselves well posted upon public matters in that part of the country, and they are advising me from time to time. They are sending me information and their opinions on public questions, and this helps . me materially in my course in this House. I am very much pleased to have their opinions, and I am sure the hon. gentleman for Calgary West can find in his electoral district fifteen men who can and would advise him, and possibly at times he would find that their advice would not conform with the opinions he expresses here. The advice I receive is good, and I say that such a course is progressive. That is one of the reasons why we claim the right to call ourselves progressive. The hon. gentleman states that he believes in the initiative and the referendum. Oh, yes, it is in actual operation throughout the Dominion, and it has been; but I will point out that the initiative and the referendum are more on the principle of direct legislation, and I will point out further that, through the medium of the initiative and the referendum, you can get the recall and a true expression of public opinion, and no power in Canada wall prevent that.
If you give the; right to initiative and referendum, you have the right to recall 'and for any act brought into being through the initiative and referendum, and consequently if you are consistent you cannot enact legislation preventing the recall. Hon. members come to this House with the Tight to sit for five years, representing or misrepresenting the people during that time. Some have done things contrary to the interests of the people, yet the people who sent them here have had no recourse. That is the Teason why the recall has ibeen introduced, and I 'believe it is a good thing to bridge the gulf between the time a member is elected and Parliament dissolves and he presents himself again to the people. That
[Mr. Gould. 3
is one of the reasons why I approve of the recall, and why I cannot support the amendment. I think I could refer to a text from Scripture to illustrate what I mean, and that is, to take the beam out of your own eye before you presume to take the mote out of your brother's. If pressed very hard, I think I could also give evidence to show that your own ranks have been working to get this recall put on the statute book.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask the hon. member to address his remarks to the Chair, and not to the other side of the House.


Oliver Robert Gould: I was going to say that the hon. member (Mr. Tweedie) has let pass many opportunities of bringing this matter to the attention of the House, but since I made the statement in this House on April 13 the hon. member, actuated by some pure and holy motive, has become anxious to have members elected to this House by the straight and narrow way. I think that his newly-found virtue should be studied very closely by hon. gentlemen before they think of enacting his amendment into law. I would point out to the hon. member that public opinion is demanding the recall, and I honestly believe that there are members of this House to wdiom the recall would foe a very, very dangerous thing. I (believe that some hon. members who are so anxious to have legislation preventing the recall are the very ones who have reason to foe afraid of its operation. 1 do not wish to discuss the matter any further. I might say that I have been asked by many hon. gentlemen opposite to give them a copy of our platform to study. It is a very interesting document, and I have given away so many that I have not a solitary one left for myself. I do not know whether they desire copies of it for purposes of discussion or to inform themselves just what our platform contains, but I am very pleased to let them have copies, and I have written to the West for a further supply. I hope they will find nothing wrong in our platform, but much that is progressive. We approve of the initiative and referendum. We believe in direct legislation. That is one of the planks in our platform, and one of the reasons why our platform is so progressive.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I have no fault to find with the hon. member (Mr. Gould) or any other hon. member for subscribing to the platform of the party to which he belongs. If he and others sitting alongside him think that the referendum and recall is

a plank which should be generally adopted in this country, they have a perfect right to put it in their platform and advocate its general adoption. But I take exception to the hon. gentleman and those who think with him carrying into effect the planks of their platform before they have had an opportunity to crystallize them into legislation, for that is a very different thing. If the members of this House wish to place legislation on the statute book favouring the referendum and recall, that is all right, but for some people in certain parts of the country to take the law into their own hands, as some have done in this matter, is something which I think should be very strongly deprecated.
The hon. member (Mr. Gould) has addressed some remarks to the hon. member (Mr. Tweedie) which I think he might very well have addressed to some hon. gentleman in his own particular group who have been in this House as long or longer than the hon. member (Mr. Tweedie). The hon. member (Mr. Halbert) sitting next to my hon. friend (Mr. Gould) thinks thaj; some members of this House are rather fearful of the recall. Well, I do not think the 'hon. member himself had such an overwhelming majority that he should feel entirely peaceful at the prospect of facing his electors again. He did not have a very large majority to boast of, although he was in the field a long time and had a host of supporters backing up his candidature. He says he would not want a seat in this House if 60 or 75 per cent of his electors petitioned for his resignation. Would he wish to hold his seat in this House if 50 per cent of his electors sent in a petition for his resignation? The hon. member does not see fit to answer that question. It is getting on pretty thin ice so far as he is concerned. He was mighty careful to fix the percentage pretty high in his own case, and was mighty careful not to say that he would resign if 51 per cent of his electors petitioned for his resignation. That would be on too dangerous ground for the hon. member. My hon. friend does not know the facts with regard to the recall. He says that 60 or 75 per cent of the electors of a constituency must ask for the recall of a member before he gives up his seat, but the hon. member (Mr. Gould), speaking in this House on April 13th, said:
An agreement does exist between my committee, whose names I have read, any myself. Forty per cent of the number of electors who voted at my election

Not forty per cent of the number of electors on the list, but forty per cent of those who voted at his election.
__may, if I refuse to do what this committee
asks me to do on the floor of this House-and that committee must meet very often and And out what public opinion is in the district of Assiniboia-if they advise me and I refuse to do that, they can apply the recall and ask me to go back.
So my hon. friend (Mr. Halbert) did not know what he was talking about when he spoke of 60 or 75 per cent having to sign a petition for the recall, for according to the hon. member (Mr. Gould) if forty per cent, not of the electors on the list, but of the electors who voted at his election, ask for his resignation he is bound to give it.
The objectionable feature is that the hon. member (Mr. Gould) entered into an agreement with a certain group of men in his constituency. He thereby placed himself in the hands of some fifteen men in that constituency and he says they keep careful watch of all his movements:	and actions in this House.
He gets advice from there occasionally as to hoiw he should conduct himself down here. They keep tab on his movements and discuss his every action in Ottawa, and the retention of his seat in this House depends upon his strict compliance with the dictates of these fifteen men. This, at any rate, is according to the statement of the hon. gentleman made on April 13th. He entered into an agreement which is tantamount to a signed resignation; he says so himself. His conduct is vigilantly watched by these men, who keep track of everything he does and says in this House; and if he should assume an attitude down here that does not commend itself to them they can initiate certain steps to get him to resign his seat. He may object to these fifteen men commanding him to hand in his resignation, because he has a sort of court of appeal to which he can resort. He can say: "It is all right; I entered into an agreement with you fifteen gentlemen- the council of fifteen-and although you think I have not done right at Ottawa and are asking me to quit, still, according to the agreement, I may either quit or ask you to present a petition signed by forty per cent of the number of those who polled votes." That is the position in which the hon. gentleman stands. If they get forty per cent of the number of votes polled at the election, then he must resignedly step down. Why, Sir, that is not even an expression of the opinion of the constituency. If it were fifty-one per cent or anything

over fifty per cent of the votes of the electors of the constituency you might perhaps say that you were having an expression of opinion from one of the constituencies of Canada; tout it is not even the majority of the constituency that is going to have the power to tell this man to gwe up his s6at and go back to Assiniboia. I say, Mr. Chairman, with all due deference to those who believe in the principle of recall, that this important matter should be determined on the floor of this House. If a majority of the members approve oi it and feel that its practice will be beneficial, all well and good; iwe can adopt it and crystallize it in the form of legislation. But until that is done, I certainly say that no group of people should be allowed to hold that power in their hands, for it is not in the best interests of the country at large that this principle, until at least it is recognized by a majority of this House, should be put into practice. Take the situation to-day in the province of Ontario. In the legislature of that province there is a combination of parties with a very narrow majority. The Dru.ry Government may be giving to. the province of Ontario the best legislation which that province ever received from any government, but it might run counter to the opinions of three or four groups of men in so many constituencies in Ontario, and with the narrow majority which the Government have at their command to carry on the administration, it would be possible for these three or four groups of people to call upon their members to resign their seats and thereby force an election upon the country. That I say is something that is to be deplored. It is in my judgment a reprehensible and dangerous attitude for any class of men to take. My hon. friend from A'ssiniboia (Mr. Gould), under existing conditions, is in actual fact not here as a member of Parliament but as a delegate of a particular group of men in a certain part of the West. I do not know whether it would be in keeping with the rules of the House for me to address the hon. member as "the hon. delegate from Assiniboia" rather than "the hon. member"-


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Order, order.


William Cameron Edwards: If my hon. friend from Red Deer (will suppress his temper-


Michael Clark: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The universal practice of this House has been for hon. gentlemen, when referring to other members in debate, to designate them "the

hon. member for So-and-So." My hon. friend is raising the question whether, it is not proper to refer to a certain hon. member as "the hon. delegate." I submit, Sir, that that is a (breach of the rules oi this House.
, Mr. EDWARDS: May I discuss the point of order for a moment?


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member may
do so.


William Cameron Edwards: According to the superior wisdom of the hon. member for Red Deer, it seems that I am out of order in even asking whether I might properly refer to the hon. member for Assiniboia as the hon. delegate from Assiniboia. Had I referred to the hon. gentleman as "the hon. delegate," my hon. friend from Red Deer might properly have raised his point of order; but I did not do so. I simply asked whether, under the rules of the House, I would be justified in referring to the hon. member as the hon. delegate for Assiniboia, and I fail to see that the hon. member for Red Deer has any ground for raising a point of order.	*


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not understand the hon. member for Frontenac to refer to the hon. member for Assiniboia as the "the hon. delegate." Had he done so, the point of order raised by the hon. member for Red Deer would have been well taken. As the hon. member for Frontenac himself has declared in discussing the point of order, that he did not refer to the hon. member for Assiniboia in the manner suggested, there is no reason for interference by the Chairman.


William Cameron Edwards: Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Red Deer will be perfectly satisfied that he was out of order himself in suggesting that I was. I think the point I was making must have been clear to every hon. member, and certainly to the member for Red iDeer, who is not slow in catching the point of an argument. The whole point I was endeavouring to make was that in view of the statement made by the hon. member for Assiniboia himself that he had entered into an agreement with a certain group of men in his constituency and was at their behest as to whether he should resign his seat or not, he was in fact a delegate of that group, sent to do certain work in this House. Under the rules I suppose I could not be permitted to refer to the hon. gentleman as the hon. delegate from Assiniboia, and yet the point in my argument was that he was not a

member of Parliament in that independent sense in which the rest of members are. My point is, in short, that he is here in the capacity of a delegate, I intended no offence to the hon. member for Assiniboia in putting forward that contention, and as a matter of fact no hon. member can construe my remarks into anything offensive. I think the hon. member has made a mistake in subscribing to such an agreement as he says he has signed. The principle is bad and I therefore support the amendment moved by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie).


Michael Clark: I cannot congratulate the Opposition or the Government supporters, and least of all can I congratulate my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie), on the strategy of this amendment. I do not know that in my short political experience, and in the longer time that I have been reading the annals of Parliament, I ever knew an amendment proposed or a motion brought forward that had in it so many certain boomerang strokes. The hon. member for Edmonton has stated what I think is absolutely correct that the Conservative party in Alberta has been for years a very advanced party. Indeed it has not been Conservative in anything but name. It has been singularly unfortunate in its attempts to gain power, but the fact remains that it has had very democratic planks in its platform. One of its planks according to the hon. member for Edmonton who is generally correct in what he states

 -


Mr. GRIESBACH:: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to designate properly? He is referring to the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Mackie).


Michael Clark: Well, the
greater includes the less, the less bears the name of the greater. I am sorry that I should have ruffled the feelings of my hon. friend (Mr. Griesbach).


William Antrobus Griesbach: Not at all; it is only in the interest of accuracy.


Michael Clark: I am endeavouring to be as accurate as I know how. The member for East Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) has stated that this democratic plank has been the referendum, the initiative and the recall. Does my hon. friend (Mr. Tweedie) deny that it has ever been a plank in the platform of the Conservative paTty of Alberta?


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: It is not to my knowledge that the initiative, referendum and
recall has been advocated, as the hon. member states. Personally, I have always been opposed to the recall and I am opposed to it now. Even if I had not opposed it, surely the hon. member for Red Deer would give a member the liberty of changing his views on any question?


Michael Clark: I will certainly extend to my hon. friend all the liberty of thought that is within reason, but the liberty claimed by my hon. friend to be the leader of a party which could ever foe suspected of supporting a democratic plank such as that in a province, and then to come into the debates of this federal House and found himself upon a statesman who lived at the end of the eighteenth century, who, gTeat though he was, if he had been here to-day would be looked upon by all parties as a most obfuscated Tory, is a very large liberty indeed, and his change of mind is as swift as forked lightning.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Mr. Chairman-


Michael Clark: I have the floor and my hon. friend can say what he has to say at some future time.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Red Deer has the floor and he cannot be interrupted unless he gives way.


Michael Clark: I was only illustrating one of the possible boomerangs that might Tesult from this amendment of unfortunate strategy. I may mention something more before 1 am finished with what I have to say on that subject. What I do ivant to say is that while I would not go so far back as Edmund Burke, great as he was, for my political models, I have a great personal regard for old British constitutional methods, and my feeling would be that the recall upon which the people of this country might particularly rely would >be the recall of a majority in a general election held under ordinary circumstances and in a general way. But there are exceptions, Mr. Chairman. I think it was because there was distinct ground for thinking that there were exceptions that I had pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) at the beginning of this session. There are exceptions, and I am here to state that, great though the constitution may be and great though parliamentary institutions are, circumstances may get to such a pass in the history and in the life of a country that it is not only necessary tO' Tecall a member, but it is necessary to recall a Gov-

ernment. I am here to state further that if the Government, seeing all these changes, were to go to the country, in so far as any evidence that is forthcoming from the recent by-election is concerned, the recall would come with mighty and sudden swiftness. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) talks of my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) not being the member for Assiniboia. Has he looked at the records of the election at which my hon. friend was elected?	.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not say anything of the kind. I must correct my hon. friend. Let him quote me correctly and I will not say anything.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend said he was not the member in the ordinary, accepted sense in which others are members.


William Cameron Edwards: Just so.


Michael Clark: Now I have
stated it, but after all it is a distinction very largely without a difference.


William Cameron Edwards: I have heard that before.


Michael Clark: Having altered the statement and brought i't into absolute agreement, will my hon. friend kindly tell me why he says the hon. member for Assiniboia is not an ordinary member of this House when my hon. friend from Assiniboia had a majority of 5,294 in a total poll of 10,000 in his constituency?


William Cameron Edwards: Very good.


Michael Clark: He is in this House quite extraordinary in that respect and if there were a general election tomorrow there would be a' vast number of ordinary members on the other side and a larger number who might find themselves not members at all. The extraordinariness would be transferred to the supporters of the Government on the other side if the recent by-election give us any indication as to what may happen. My hon. friend from Assiniboia would be prepared, I am quite sure, to contest his constituency again to-morrow if need be and I do not think the result would <be very different. No Unionist would think it would be, because they fought very shy of that constituency. They did not go near it. They did not put candidates up in it.
While I say again that I am a constitutionalist, in the old sense, I want to give my hon. friend all the points I can possibly give but when any body of men any-
MVlr. M. Clark.]
where in this country come to me and ask me to sign an agreement, while I do not go the length that my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) went, and make a draft upon my future by making a distinct pledge here as to what I would do,-1 am going to concede that it will be a pretty hard hurdle for me to jump. I have done a lot of thinking on my own account ever since I have taken an interest in public affairs and I am free to confess that this will be a pretty hard hurdle for me to jump and I will not commit myself any more on that point at the present time. I want to Congratulate the hon. member for West Calgary upon his very suddenly acquired fondness for sound and ancient democratic principles. To those of us who come forward as the champions of larger democratic principles it is most charming to hear such confessions from some hon. members even although they only think they are democrats. I think the most democratic sentiment on this subject is that which has been uttered by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's. I have not the least doubt that in the few words he uttered he expressed the doctrines of true democracy on this question. While he mentioned what his own personal predilections would be in favour of, the real attempt to hurb the power of the people is on the part of those who want to say that when you are elected-by any scratch chance or on any single issue-you can sit there until the term of Parliament is out whatever your changes of view may be and whatever changes may have taken place in the country. That is not democracy, Mr. Chairman; that is securing power, by democratic subterfuges, to substitute an autocracy for a democracy.
If there were no other grounds on which I felt inclined to vote for this amendment I should certainly vote against it on at least these two grounds. The committee noticed, no doubt, that my hon. friend from East Calgary drew a very marked distinction between a signed agreement and a recall; and I am bound to say that my hon. friend from West Calgary spoke in the other sense. Mark the language of the amendment. It speaks of persons who have signed any agreement, whether amounting to a resignation, a recall or otherwise-that is to say, the amendment makes no distinction in principle between an agreement and a recall. We have the mover speaking in the sense of his amendment also making no distinction between an agreement and a recall; and yet his seconder from the

same constituency of Calgary-or rather the eastern portion of that constituency- draws a very marked distinction between an agreement and a recall. Now, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit to the hon. members of this committee that it is almost an insult to our intelligence to ask us to vote for an amendment whose strategy is so bad, and which has been drawn up so hurriedly, that the mover and the seconder do not agree as to their.opinions upon it, and do not agree as to what their amendment means. That would be. sufficient to condemn the amendment in the eyes and in the minds of all sensible men. There is another thing: I am a little hazy as to what the amendment would bind one to if one voted for it. I think the weakness of the amendment-as was hinted at by the hon. member from Shelburne and Queen's-is this: It does not make the very necessary distinction between a man acting in his private character and acting as a public representative. A man may sign an agreement, in his private character, with a partner that if their business requires he should go back to it he would resign his seat in Parliament. Until that private agreement was put in force would he necessarily be any worse servant of the people in Parliament? A man might make a written declaration to his wife in a letter that he would resign. In that case he would foe bound to obey if he had the experience of most ordinary mortals. Would he on that account-while his written agreement with his wife was in existence-be any worse servant of his country in Parliament? The great thing, Mr. Chairman, that we want to obtain is that when a man is in Parliament-whether he signs an argeement or merely gives pledges to a party-he should live up to that agremenf, and be true to his principles and to his pledges. Then he need not fear a recall either before ot at a general election, in most cases. That is the sound principle.
Now I think a very neat argument was made as against the amendment by my hon. friend from North Ontario when he said that if seventy-five per cent of the electors signed an agreement for his recall he would not wish to stay here. I dare say his experience is not universal in this Chamber. If I were to look carefully around and to scrutinize, I might find some hon. members who would sit here, according to the way they vote, if even eighty per cent, of their electors signed such an agreement. But there was nothing wrong in what my 130
hon. friend said. He did not define that as the recall; he. said that if seventydive per cent wished him to go out he would not wish to stay. I endorse his sentiment. If seventy-five per cent, or any fair percentage above the half, signed a petition for me to get out of here, I .should lose my own .selfrespect as a representative of the people if I stayed.
I have no more to say. The amendment is hazy; its authors do not agree as to its meaning; it does not commend itself to my intelligence; it does not commend itself to my democrartic principles. I endorse very heartily the position taken by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. 'Fielding), and I shall have pleasure in voting with him against the amendment.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at Eight o'clock.


Mr. DAVIS:: Mr. Chairman, I can see no real objection to such a bargain as that attacked by the amendment being made between a member and his constituents. Neither the member nor his constituents get from that bargain what they suppose they do get. I believe further, that such a bargain is hardly consistent with the proper working of the British constitution. If a member comes here as a delegate subject to the control o.f a section of his people, and not as a representative, the principle of responsibility is vihlated. If he comes here representing an opinion which is imposed by a portion of the electorate,, they and not he are responsible. And there is no means of calling them to account. On the other hand, if he comes here bound to exercise his best judgment in deciding upon a question and if he makes a mistake, or if for any unworthy motive he votes in the wrong way, he is responsible. He must make his explanation to his people, and when he again submits himself for their judgment they express their opinion with regard to the consequence of his action and upon his personal connection therewith.
A bargain of the sort that is proposed, in the first place, puts a member at a very serious disadvantage, as I see it. He is not a free agent in respect of many of the questions that come before this House. If questions of fiscal policy, questions of great public import, have been decided upon by those whose delegate he is, he is not free to speak his mind upon them; he speaks the mind of some one else. Everything he



says is subject to this condition. It is not the free judgment of a free man; the opinion which he expresses is that which is delegated here to express, just as counsel advocates his client's case in a court of law; no greater authority stands behind the opinion that he comes here to express. On the other hand, the people themselves are adversely affected by the contract. He is not responsible to them. They have taken the responsibility upon their own shoulders, and in very many cases they are not in a position to give a fair judgment upon the question at issue. We know that situations constantly arise in connection with which there is not a great deal of time to get information and to form a judgment upon a given question, and the public as a matter of fact are not informed upon it. I can think of one case in my experience, if you will pardon my making a personal reference. The first question upon which I spoke in this House was the question of alien labour and its conscription. 1 took the position that the principle was wrong. Practically every newspaper in my riding criticised my attitude. Now, I was right and my riding was wrong; yet had I at that time been subject to recall I should have been defeated upon that question because there was so much false opinion abroad in the riding. That is an illustration of how this- matter would work out.
While holding these opinions, I think that when a member proposes an amendment in this committee the burden is upon him of showing: first, that there is an evil; second, that the evil is of such magnitude that it should be dealt with by legislation; third, that the legislation proposed will correct the situation. I do not think that any one of these three conditions has arisen. I cannot see that there is an evil. Eight here let me call attention to a remark made by the member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark). He spoke of this amendment covering, in its terms, agreements other than those between the member and his constituents. But you will notice, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the agreement at all that is attacked; it is the signing of the agreement. That is, if the agreement is made without being put in writing, that act is not covered by the amendment now submitted. The amendment clearly does not touch the essence of the question which it was intended to touch. We have had no case before us yet where this has led to any abuse, and it is time enough for this House, or for any legislature, to deal with a condition when it has really developed into an abuse. The sug-
gestion to deal with. it in advance seems to be prompted in this case, I am sorry to say, by a desire to snatch a party advantage, and that is a false principle upon which to pursue any matter of legislation. Therefore, I would say that the mover of this amendment would be well advised if he would withdraw it and leave what I feel to be the natural consequences and penalties of the situation to correct it.
Mr. LAPOINTE; I am one of those who do not believe in the system of recall. It is a wrong principle, it is opposed to the principles upon which British parliamentary institutions are based. The advocacy of this system was brought into the western provinces by gentlemen coming from the United States, and in that country conditions are very different from those in Canada. Under the British parliamentary system a member of Parliament represents not only the electors of his constituency, but the whole country; under the United States system he represents his district or division. The difference is fundamental. Under the British parliamentary law a member of Parliament could not very well be a free agent* as he is supposed to be, and represent the country, if he is subject to recall, because his parliamentary activities would naturally have to coincide with the views of the men who may recall him at any time. I do not believe at all in this system in Canada, and I could not subscribe to a platform of which this system would be one of the main planks. On the other hand, I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding). I am opposed to this system personally, but I do not see why I should be opposed to any people holding as to it a different opinion from mine. This system is in operation in many states of the Union and even in some of the British Dominions, and I should not like to be a party to depriving compulsorily any man or group from having this opinion and holding that the recall is a good policy. The recall is not a Liberal policy; it is not a progressive policy. Some people are wrong in calling "progressive" every new thing that they advocate; there are innovations that are not reforms and that are not conducive to progress. On the other hand, the amendment is not a Liberal amendment; it would be an arbitrary measure on the part of this Parliament to disqualify any man who would subject himself to recall by the electors of his division.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: As I see the matter, the recall is the most objectionable feature of

class government, and it is something that could be worked out by a class aspiring to rule the country in the interest of that class to the detriment of the whole community.
iMr. GAUVREAU: The hon. member goes straight to the point.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not see any difference between a man coming into this House, having signed an agreement with fifteen farmers to retire when they request him to do so, and a man coming into this House, having signed an agreement with fifteen manufacturers to retire when they ask him to do so. What would my hon. friends of the third party say if a man came into this House who had signed up an agreement with fifteen manufacturers, or fifteen bankers, or fifteen of any of those classes that they call the capitalistic classes? But there is absolutely no difference. Let us assume that the manufacturers put up the campaign funds for a man and he is elected to this House. They will then be doing exactly what the farmers are doing in the AVest, and because in the West they put up the money to elect a man, they tie a string to him and say: You can stay in the House of Commons only as long as you do as we say. If that be parliamentary government under British institutions, then I do not understand parliamentary government.


Oliver Robert Gould: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: When I get through, you may. I had an idea that when a man came into this House, he should come in as a free man. His constituents know his views from the way in which he has presented them on the platform and probably by a long acquaintance with him and frequent expression of his opinions, and if they are willing to elect him, knowing all that, then they must give him the right to exercise his judgment upon all questions that come before this House. If we get away from that and we have a group of labour men tied up with an agreement with fifteen men, a group of agrarians tied up with an agreement of fifteen men, and other groups tied up with other similar agreements, we would have a Parliament that would not be able to govern this country very satisfactorily.
I was sorry to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) give the weight of his authority in condoning this particular plan of action. He does not believe in it; he thinks it is wrong. I think it is most pernicious, and 130*
I was sorry to see an hon. member with so much authority in this House go as far as he did. Unless we can, in this House, deal with each question as it comes up in accordance with our judgment and our consciences, we are not likely to be capable representatives of the people of the country as a whole. While I represent a population of about 80,000 in our city, I do not regard myself simply as representing them; I endeavour to the best of my ability to represent the people of Canada. A man who comes into this House tied up with such an agreement as the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) has admitted he has made is not in a position to do his work in this House as he should. Perhaps it would be a good idea if the hon. member for Assiniboia would produce the agreement and let us see what it contains.


Oliver Robert Gould: I might tell the hon. gentleman that the agreement I had was to go and buy a steer.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think the hon. member must be talking Ruthenian; I do not understand him. I should like him to produce the agreement.


Oliver Robert Gould: I should like to tell the hon. gentleman that it is none of his business.'


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If that is the attitude the hon. gentleman takes, I suppose we shall have to submit to it; but it is very peculiar for a man in the responsible position he occupies to say in this House that he has made an agreement with fifteen men in his constituency to retire when they ask him to do so.


Oliver Robert Gould: I never made that statement.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You have signed an
agreement with these fifteen men.


Oliver Robert Gould: To do what?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: To resign when they
want you to.


Oliver Robert Gould: I did not.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I submit that' after all
the hon. member has said, not only to-day but on former occasions, he owes it to himself to produce the agreement and let the House see what it is. If it is a secret agreement that he cannot make public, so much the worse. We have his own words that he did make such an agreement, because on the 13th of April he said in this House:
An agreement does exist between my committee, whose names I have read, and myself.

That surely is a frank admission, and I submit that the hon. member ought to produce the agreement and let the House determine just what kind of a string his constituents have on him.


Mr. L. THOMSON:: I rise to a point of order. I submit that an amendment is before the Chair, not an investigation of the character and actions of the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the point of
order is well taken, because as a matter of fact we are not discussing the position ,of the present member for Assiniboia, but an amendment which is now before the Committee. I understood the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) to refer to this matter merely by way of illustration. -


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I bow to your ruling,
Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend (Mr. L. Thomson) has saved his friend from Assiniboia from further criticisms with regard to that agreement. If any other member had said as much as I have said, and I had an agreement of that kind in my pocket, I would produce it. I would stand by it or I would renege. I just want to register my protest against this un-British system of men coming here with the possibility of their being recalled by a handful of men in their own constituency or anywhere else. I was very much surprised that the hon. member (Mr. M. Clark) with his long parliamentary experience and thorough knowledge of British institutions should defend such a practice.


Levi Thomson: I can agree in two particulars, perhaps, with some hon. gentlemen who have spoken in , this discussion. I am not so mudh in love with the recall myself. Still, I believe .this amendment is not called for, that there is no good ground for it. As to another particular, I do not know that I can quite agree with any hon. members whom I have heard discussing it to-day-I have not heard all the discussion, but -most of it. It seems to be assumed that if a person signs such an agreement as has been mentioned, he cannot come here as a free and independent agent, that he cannot act independently. My hon. friend (Mr. Hocken) nods his .head. I am astonished, because I had a better opinion of him. I really thought he was more independent. I can sign all the agreements you like, and I would still feel that I could act here in an independent way. I do not require the recall, because the moment my constituents satisfy me that they want me to go back I 
will go without waiting for a recall. So what difference does it make if I have signed an agreement to go back providing the majority of my constituents are opposed to me, when I will go back if I am so satisfied without any such written agreement?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Did I understand the
hon. gentleman to say that he would sign an agreement to do a certain thing and that he would then not do it?


Levi Thomson: My hon. friend did
not understand me at all. I say that without signing an agreement I would go back in such a case. If I were satisfied that a majority of my constituents were opposed to me I would resign right now, without any written agreement. So the position is exactly the same. To show wherein I differ from some of the views expressed here to-day I cannot do better perhaps than to quote what I said in the House last year as reported in Hansard of the First Session of 1919, page 3579:
But so long as we are elected to represent the people of the country, so long as our constituents select us to voice their views, and we are called here for the purpose of considering and discussing public measures, it seems to me we are hound by our voices and votes to give effect, so far as we are able, to the desires of our constituents, at least in so far as we are able to understand these desires and can conscientiously support them ; and when we reach the stage where we feel that our own views and convictions are so far from being in accord with those of the majority of our constituents that we cannot properly represent them, we should resign and allow our constituents to select representatives who can represent them.
From tfhe discussion -this afternoon it would appear that members generally are entirely opposed to -those views, -although I thought at the time that they received the general approval of the House. I feel sure that if hon. gentlemen who have spoken would give voice -to their best thoughts they would agree with those sentiments; that we should, so far as we can conscientiously do so, represent -the views of our constituents, and when we -cannot conscientiously represent -the -majority, let us get out, because the people have a right to be represented here. I notice that a distinction is drawn between the ordinary common p opl'e and the cream of creation who -come here. I do not draw any such a distinction. It is said that the voice of the people is the voice of God. II think that is over-drawing it, but I think it is just as much the voice of God as is the voice of any clique here or elsewhere. I certainly dislike -what has been

preached in this House from time to time, that we are a sort of select (few who stand on a different level from the ordinary common people of the world. But we have that doctrine preached to us very often, perhaps not in so many words, hut in effect.
I believe that every member should not only represent the views of his constituents, but also do the best that in him lies for the benefit oif the country at large. My hon. friend (Mr. Hocken) looks doubtful, as if the two propositions were contradictory. They are not so in the least. 'Some people believe they are contradictory because they have not enough faith in theii constituents. I have sufficient faith in the constituents of Qu'Appelle to believe that they want me .to act here, not merely in their own interests, but in the best interests of the country as a whole. A great many hon. members apparently think .their constituents are so narrow-minded that they do not want their member to do anything except attend to their own special interests. I do not take that view of the people I represent, and the moment I do, I will get out, and very quickly, because I would not want to represent such narrow-minded people as a great many hon. members this afternoon seemed to think they were representing.
With regard to the recall, I am not in love with the principle. II do no.t say that I would not sign an agreement if I were asked to, 'because my position -would then be no different from what it is now. It is chips in porridge as to whether I sign such an agreement, just as it is with any other hon. member who is not so firmly attached to his seat that he is not prepared to leave it when he feels that he is not able to represent his constituents properly. My hon. friend (Mr. Hocken) asked how we would like hon. members before they come here to sign an agreement whereby fifteen manufacturers would have the power to recall them. I would not have the slightest objection, providing there were the safeguards that my hon. friends (Mr. 'Gould and Mr. Halbert) have mentioned, namely, that the majority-for that is what it practically amounts to-want the member recalled. As long as those fifteen men are honest, and can satisfy themselves that the majority of the constituents want the member recalled, there is no objection whatever to his being recalled. I think it would not be a bad idea if some of us were recalled.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That's bad doctrine.


Levi Thomson: I believe in the people ruling. My hon. friend does not.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I believe in all the people
ruling.


Levi Thomson: So do I. While I agree with my hon. friend that we should keep in mind the good of the people as a whole, my view is that the people of any particular locality who select a candidate and send him to Parliament have a right to have their special views represented in the House. I believe that we should bear always in mind the good of the whole people, and I believe that our constituents entertain that view. Before I was nominated at the last election I tried to make my position perfectly clear. My experience in the House had shown me-and it iwas not a very pleasant experience, I must say-that unfortunate situations might arise at times from a party point of view, that under certain circumstances a man had the right to use his own judgment and that it was not safe for him to depend on the views of any one else. I therefore said to my constituents: If you are going to select me as your candidate I want you to understand that I will go on one condition only, and that is, that I shall be entitled to use my own judgment in any case where I think necessary. And I said further: If you are not going to send me to Parliament on that condition I do not want the nomination', and I will not go.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is not the case with your hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould).


Levi Thomson: Having made that perfectly clear, I was returned to Parliament iby acclamation, which I think showed that the people generally in my constituency held the same view that I hold, namely, that while to a large extent a member represents the views of his constituents, he must be given a free hand and be allowed to exercise his own judgment when circumstances demand that he should do so. <


William Cameron Edwards: Suppose, when the hon. member had put to his constituents in that manly way the position he took, they had said: That is all very well; now, will you sign your name to this agreement before you go to Ottawa?-what would he have said?


Levi Thomson: I would have no hesitation in signing it. I might not ap-
2C40

prove of the proposal in its entirety, hut I say that those people would have the right, if they saw fit, to ask that their views should he presented before Parliament. And without signing any agreement I represent their views now.


William Cameron Edwards: You would not regard that request of theirs as a mark of confidence, would you?


Levi Thomson: The fact that they have returned me to Parliament is a mark of their confidence in me. With regard to the remarks of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and others in connection with the question of initiative and referendum, I do not see why certain constituencies should not do certain things they want to do if they see fit. I have no objection to the principle of initiative and referendum. I took my Stand on that question long ago, and am in favour of it; and if the majority of the people were in favour of recall I would accept it because I would be in a minority. My main objection to the recall is not the objection that has been urged here. I object on the ground that it would relieve the people themselves of a certain responsibility which they ought to shoulder. When the people of a constituency select a man to represent them for four or five years we have the right to expect that they shall exercise every care and precaution to ensure that the man whom they choose is a man in wham they can repose absolute confidence and on whom they can depend during the term he represents them in the House. I think we have the right to expect that the people should shoulder that responsibility, and that is the ground upon which I object to the recall. I do not object to the recall because I do not want to be recalled myself should a majority of the people (whom I represent be dissatisfied with the manner in which I have discharged my responsibilities to them. If I am fool enough not to know when the people are dissatisfied with the way in which I represent them I hope they will show me imy error. My hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) is a lawyer and should understand the legal effect of his amendment, and I think he will agree with me that that effect is that the agreement which is signed must be of such a character as to limit the independence of the member. If he considers for a moment I think he will agree that it will depend on the man himself as to whether his nomination is regular and legal. If the man were of such a character that his independ-
dence would not be affected it would be perfectly safe to nominate him; but who is to decide wfiether a man is of that calibre or not? Is it the returning officer who is to decide that point? The returning officer decides a great many things, but is he to call witnesses to decide whether the man nominated can be trusted to exercise his own independence in spite of his liability to be recalled? He must decide whether the man is so crooked and unreliable as not to be trusted to act on his best judgment for fear of being recalled. I think my hon. friend rwill see that there is a valid objection to his amendment as framed. If the man is worthy of nomination this amendment cannot apply to him, because a man is not worthy of nomination unless he is independent enough to act on his own (best judgment even though he expects to be recalled five minutes after.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I must eay that I am very much at sea after listening to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. L. Thomson). I do not know whether he proposes to vote on principle or in defiance of principle, or whether he agrees With the amendment or not. At one moment he says he agrees with it and at another he says- he does not. It is a case Of "now you see and now you don't." The fact that I cannot apprehend the exact view of my hon. friend is perhaps due to my unfortunate stupidity, but nevertheless that fact remains. If members of the House are sent by their constituents- with instructions to vote for the recall, the House will pass |a (law enacting the recall. I do not think there is .any doubt about that. So that saying that there shall be no recall or that the principle is wrong is surely beside the question. If the people elect members and send them to vote for recall, initiative and referendum, the whole three if you will, they certainly will vote for it. If they are not sent here for some specific purpose of that kind possibly it would be premature for them to do so. I can understand the agreement that some of these gentlemen are said to have signed. It is in anticipation of the legislation that is demanded by some, namely, that there should be the recall. As a consequence, the constituents, feeling that it ought to be the law, if it is not, require their member to sign some such agreement. I do not think that can be said in any way to restrict the independence of the member, because the member who is invited to represent the constituency is well aware of the restriction which exists, and moreover the mem-

ber is invited to represent the constituency, not himself. Many people run away with the idea that they are here to exercise their own judgment. They are certainly not, except within the limits of absolute right or wrong-which neither they nor anybody else can comprehend;-they are here to represent their constituents within reasonable limits and excepting some of the glaring measures now before the public which deny reason and right.
With-in reasonable limits therefore we may say that a man finds that some policy has arisen-such, for example, as the Canada Steamship merger or the steel merger, or the great agricultural merger that is now maturing, or something like that,-on which he has had no instuctions, but on which he may have very definite opinions. These opinions may be entirely contrary to the opinions of a great number of his constituents. Surely it would be absurd, within reasonable limits, that this man should not accept notification that he should return and confer with his constituents on the subject. In any event it will undoubtedly be the law some day that a member will take his membership on the understanding that all these restrictions apply; -if he does not like to take the job he can stay at home. But that this new law is coming is undoubted. I think anybody can see that everything that facilitates the movement of the machinery of legislation is likely to be enacted, and endorsed and received by the public.
Undoubtedly, sometimes, Mr. Chairman, it might not work well, but it is within the power of the constituents to see that it does. It is true that we have had measures adopted in this House which defy the constituents and that we have had members who have defied their constituents. The constituents are tired of that, and I fancy a good many of the members are, too. Democracy, instead of developing on democratic lines, has in the most extraordinary manner, as someone well expressed it the other day, settled itself in government. Privy councils were originated in the reign of the Stuarts for the purpose of curbing the power of the king. They were then supposed to represent the opinions of the people. But having disposed of the absolute authority of the king they have proceeded in these later days to dispose of the absolute authority of the people. These things must be said, and surely it is but common sense to say that the people who pay the taxes and bear the burden and heat of the day are entitled to be consulted.
While I myself personally would feel it a severe affliction, and a reflection upon my judgment, should the people take action by way of recall, I must nevertheless admit that it is right and reasonable, with proper safeguards, such as possibly twenty-five per cent or something of that description. I would be recreant to my duty if I did not speak in favour of that advanced principle. It may be possible that if we did confer with our constituents the member would convince them that they were wrong and he was right, in which case the blushing member, after he had converted his entire constituency, would return to Parliament in a great wave of popular approval and the offence which might be given to his isupersensitiveness would be compensated for by the acclaim with which he would be received in recognition of the astounding victory that he had achieved over his constituents. But do not let us commit the error of saying that we stand in the way of trying any reasonable measure which would allow us to confer with our constituents in order that they might express their opinion and that we might express ours.


Mr. J. F. REID:: Mr. Chairman, I have always supposed that the Conservative party of Alberta stole this plank of the recall from the platform of the Non-Partisan League which was strong in Alberta at that time. I am told also on good authority that this was a very astute expedient of the Conservative party in Alberta to put one over on the Non-Partisan League. The hon. member for West Calgary-


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to correct him?
Mr. J. F. REID-was the leader of that party at that time. I am not quite sure whether he was the recognized or official leader, but I do know that he was the man ''with the punch" behind the leader, if he was not the actual leader himself. On account of that I understand that the NonPartisan League in the province of Alberta has pretty well gone out of business, the assumption being that the Conservative party in Alberta became the Non-Partisan League whose strongest appeal was direct legislation.
Considerable has been said about signing an agreement. An attack has been made on the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) because he signed an agreement which seems to tickle the curiosity of hon. members opposite. Why? The Conservative party was the party which in-

stituted this procedure. If the hon. member for Assiniboia has been guilty of the offence of signing an agreement, he is not the only one in this House who is guilty of it. There is an old Scotch' saying that you had better clean your own doorstep before you go abroad to clean the doorsteps of others. What is the difference between the procedure instituted by the Conservative party and signing an agreement such as the one which the hon. member for Assiniboia is understood to have signed? I am of the opinion that not one hon. member *on the other side of the House sits there a free man. I will endeavour to prove it. Is it not a fact that in the election of 1917, before hon. members received the endorsa-tion of Union Government, they promised allegiance to the Union Government?


Mr. HALLADAY:: Absolutely not.


John Flaws Reid: I will call for the
next man who will get up and deny it.


Mr. CLEMENTS:: I deny it, absolutely.


Georges Henri Boivin: This proceeding is
wholly irregular and not in accordance with the rules.


John Flaws Reid: I am sorry if I have trespassed the rules of the House, but I have respect for your ruling, Sir.
Mr. GAUVREAU. It was very interest-. ing, though.


John Flaws Reid: I will say, this, however, that in the province from which I come, the candidates who got the endorsa-tion of the Union Government had to pledge themselves.


Mr. LALOR:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Flaws Reid: I will tell the hon.
members of this House what was the reason for the bringing into being of this recall -it was the old party system. I know whereof I speak. We elected members out in Western Canada whom we thought to be strong enough to stand up here in Parliament and represent the views of the people who elected them; and some of them have told me that when they got down here they were whipped into line and they had to support their party. That is the reason the recall was put into force.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


John Flaws Reid: Those hon. gentlemen were tied, they were not free.


William Cameron Edwards: May I ask my hon.
friend a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. When the
Chairman rises it is the duty of all hon. gentlemen to take their seats. I ask the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) does he desire to put a question or state a point of order?
Mr. EDWAiRDS: If I may be permitted 1 wish to ask the hon. gentleman a question, but if he does not consent, well and good.


John Flaws Reid: My practice in this
House-I think all will agree as to that- is not to interrupt any hon. gentleman when he is speaking in debate.


John Archibald Campbell: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Ernest Lapointe: It is the recall.


John Flaws Reid: I do not believe in
favouritism.	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not think you have any favourites.


John Flaws Reid: The hon. member for
West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) accused the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) of being the representative of a class.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Flaws Reid: Mr. Chairman, if the
hon. member for Assiniboia is the representative of a class, and if he has signed any document putting himself in the hands of such a class my hon. friend from West Toronto should be the last one to throw stones at that hon. gentleman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Flaws Reid: Is it any worse to represent a class than to represent an Order?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does the hon. member wish to ask a question or state a point of order?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There is such an absolute misrepresentation in the hon. gentleman's statement that I want to put it right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Take your medicine.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for West Toronto lias a right to correct any misrepresentation when the hon. member who now has the floor has concluded his speech. It will not be in order to make the correction at the present time.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I hope to have that opportunity.


John Flaws Reid: It seems to me hon. members opposite are living in fear and dread of something, but they do not know what it is.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No. we are not.


John Flaws Reid: I doubt whether any hon. member in this House has seen the good or the ill effects of the recall, but it seems to me that some, at least, have come to the conclusion that there is going to be a recall. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if there was a little less throwing of mud at each other across the floor of the House it would be better.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You have thrown a little yourself.


John Flaws Reid: Those who started it are more responsible than those who indulged in it on provocation.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You are starting it.


John Flaws Reid: While the hon. member for Frontenac was attacking the young member for Assiniboia, the youngest-no the second-youngest-member in this House, I wondered whether the chivalry of Parliament had vanished. The hon. member for Frontenac-


William Cameron Edwards: Get the baby carriage.


John Flaws Reid: -is one of the oldest and one of the ablest members in this House. In fact, I understand his ability is such that he was considered eligible for a position in the Cabinet.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: No, the Senate.


John Flaws Reid: Then why should any hon. member with the splendid ability of the hon. member for Frontenac attack a young and inexperienced member of this House?


William Cameron Edwards: Get the nurse and the baby carriage.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I rise to resent the mean insinuation of the hon. member-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. HOCKEN r-that 

 I came into the House to represent anything else but one of the best constituencies in the Dominion of Canada. There is a population of 80,000 in my constituency composed of every class -foreigners and English speaking people of every creed;-and six thousand soldiers went from my constituency, which accounts for a majority of over 10,000. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that neither he nor any other man in this House is more truly a representative of the people as a whole- men and women, rank and file-than I am in the constituency of West Toronto.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of the fact that this amendment has a direct bearing on the important question of the independence of members of Parliament I should not like it to go to a vote without expressing my views as to the significance of its proposal. In my opinion every member of Parliament should feel, if he wishes to represent the people in the broadest possible way, that when he enters this Parliament he is a representative not of any class, not of any creed, not of any section-I might say not of any particular constituency except to see that the views of his constituency are always properly presented-but that above all he represents the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That, I think, is the only view a man can take as to his responsible position as a member of the Parliament of Canada. Having stated my belief in that regard, may I consider the significance of the amendment and what it proposes?
All our political institutions are a matter more or less of evolution. There was a time when the Governor of this country thought that he could dictate to his ministers, and that the ministers should have no say whatever unless it suited the particular view which the Governor entertained. It was an attitude which - those who wanted things done only in accordance with -their	own way of thinking,
were apt to encourage. A familar example which will be in the minds of members of the House was the occasion when Lord Elgin was asked to assent to -the Rebellion Losses Bill which Parliament had passed in 1848. The Tories of that day thought that our governmental institutions were being outraged. They told Lord Elgin that if he assented to that Bill he would have to take all kinds of consequences, including his recall to England. What was the position that Lord Elgin took? He said that his advisers had given him the Bill to sign, and that he proposed

to accept the advice of his advisers. What was he told? I am not quoting the exact words, but they were to the effect that his advisers were fools. To this Lord Elgin is said to have replied: If the people care to send me fools as advisers, then I must abide by the advice of fools. In that expression we find the principle underlying responsible government. From that time to this it has been held that the Governor is bound by the advice of his ministers so long as they represent the people, and that it is not for the Governor to say who his advisers shall be.
It seems to me that in regard to this particular amendment we are in a position very similar, as respects what is fundamental in what we mean by representative government. It is for the people to say whom they wish to send to this Parliament as their representatives, not' for this Parliament to tell the people whom they shall or shall not send. If the people desire to choose as .a candidate and to send to this Parliament as their representative a man who is tied, manacled or bound, whether by physical infirmity, by agreement, or in any other way, so long as all the facts and circumstances surrounding his position are publicly known, it seems to me that, on the theory that the people have the right to govern and to send whom they will to Parliament, they have a right to say whether or not that candidate should go to Parliament.
Now, with regard to the particular matter of the recall, were I in an election and had I as an opponent-I understand that there is the possibility of such being the case-one who is bound by any recall, I should urge strongly upon the electors that that was one of the main reasons why they should not give him their support; that one who is bound by an agreement, fettered in any way, subjected to any restriction of his liberty in this Parliament to take whatever action seems best as questions come up, is not in the best position to serve as a representative of the people. That, I think, is a strong reason why such a candidate should not be returned.
But that is a very different thing from this Parliament here and now saying that they will not allow the people of the country the liberty to choose between a man who is bound by the recall and a man who is opposing him and who will not be bound in that way. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the question is one which affects the fundamental rights of the people in the matter of Government, and believing as I do that the people should have the full-
[Mr Mackenzie King.]
est liberty, the fullest freedom, in the choice of whom they wish to send to this Parliament, I shall oppose this amendment because I believe that it would deprive the people of a certain liberty in that regard. At the same time, I repeat what I said at the outset: that any member or any man who presents himself to the electorate and at the same time tells the electorate that he is not free in all particulars to use his best judgment as circumstances dictate, is not, to my way of thinking, the best type of representative to have in Parliament.


Hugh Guthrie: To a very large extent, speaking for myself, I agree with the views just now expressed by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). However, I think it is just as well that this question has been ventilated in the House; I do not think that the time that has been taken up in this discussion will be found to be wholly unprofitable.
Perhaps, there is some misconception as to the real meaning of the amendment. If I read the amendment aright, it does not raise the question of the legislative recall as it has been discussed in this House today; it raises rather the question of agreements which would in any manner whatsoever limit the independence of members of Parliament. Having regard to the real meaning of the amendment, 1 think most hon. members will agree that any agreement which does limit the independence of a member of this House should not be permitted to exist. I have heard it stated by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), a man of broad learning and great experience, that these agreements are nothing more than political plfedges. If that were all, I would agree with him that there is very little wrong in them. But they are not political pledges. Political pledges are made in the open.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not always.


Hugh Guthrie: Political pledges are
pledges made for the purpose of convincing an elector; they must foe .made in the open; they must be made notorious, or they will have no effect. The vitiating principle of such agreements as are referred to in this amendment, if I understand it aright, is the secrecy of the proceedings-a secrecy which, in the case of one agreement that I know of, an hon. member is determined to maintain. I heard my hon. Ifriend from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) this afternoon say that he had been followed around this House by members who sought to obtain from him

the platform of tihe Farmers' party. Well, around the corridors of this House I have heard a good many members say that they would like to obtain, not the platform of the Farmers' party, but the secret agreement wihidh the Farmers' party insist that their candidates shall sign. Here is one principle to which I seriously object; that ten or fifteen or twenty men in any riding should hold any document of a secret nature-I emphasize that point, because if it is free and open I have no objection to it- which will in any way limit the independence otf a member of this House. It is a wrong principle; it is a vicious principle; in my humble judgment it is a principle which Parliament should seek to do away with. I do not know that the amendment now proposed is the correct remedy; probably it was launched for the purpose of having this question discussed. I believe that the whole of the people should be made acquainted with these facts. My position is this-and I think I can speak for the Government in this respect-that so long as your agreement is made public, so long as the people understand it before they take advantage of the opportunity of voting on it, II see no objection whatever to it. If a candidate for election as a member of this Parliament is bound by an agreement of a special nature to any particular class otf people, and If these facts are known, all well and good; let him go to the polls on that understanding. But the case is entirely different when the agreement is of a secret or private nature, if that agreement limits the independence otf the member of Parliament.


Michael Clark: Will the hon. member allow me to tell him exactly what the Farmers' platform contains upon this question?


Hugh Guthrie: I think I can dispense with that.


Michael Clark: There is no secret agreement mentioned in it.


Hugh Guthrie: I can dispense with that for the moment. It has been brought to my attention-rumours at all events are afloat to the effect-that in the Ontario legislature to-day men are sitting who have been elected and who have actually signed a form of resignation in the form prescribed by the Ontario Statute, which form is witnessed by two electors. These documents were signed,. I am told, before the nominations took place. Certainly, they were not made public before the election. If such
documents exist, if they are secret documents and if they are permitted by the law, then I say that the law should be amended. That is my personal view of the matter. I hardly think this amendment is in the proper form to remedy the matter; but the amendment has at least served one good purpose; it has brought the whole question to the attention of the House and of the country, and I think it is a subject which should receive the attention of the Government. I do not know what the ultimate object of my hon. friend (Mr. Tweedie) in moving this amendment is. I would suggest to him, now that we have had the benefit of this discussion, now that we have a better understanding of the whole subject, that a little time be permitted to us to study out the question and come to some conclusion on it after we have made a better and fuller study of it than we have made up to the present. My suggestion to the hon. member is that he should remain content with the discussion we have had and withdraw the present amendment.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I would be very glad to follow immediately the suggestion made by the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) who has charge of this Bill, and I can assure him that I shall follow his advice and the suggestions also of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), after I have made a few remarks which I feel I should make in justice to myself and those who have spoken on this side of the House in connection with this amendment. When I introduced this subject, I introduced it purely as a question of principle without having in mind the status of any individual member of this House. I endeavoured, so far as was within my power, to avoid any personalities in connection with the discussion. I did not wish, that any remarks that I made or any remarks which were made by any hon. member in support of the amendment which I moved should in any way be derogatory or belatting of or hold in ridicule any hon. member who felt it his duty to speak in connection with this amendment. To that, I will refer later.
I have no apologies to make for moving this amendment, because I feel that, in connection with the political life of this country, while the question has not yet assumed vast proportions, it is a growing question which must he dealt with, and if we are to conserve our constitutional rights, it behooves us, as members of this House

of Commons, to take into consideration and have in this House a frank discussion of the arguments which might be adduced for or against this question of the recall, the signing of a resignation before an election, or the entering into any agreement with any committee, which agreement might limit or control the activities or duties of a member of this House.
I cannot agree with the arguments which have been submitted by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) when, standing up in his place in this House as leader of one of the great parties of this country, he says that there is growing up in connection with our constitution a principle to which he cannot adhere and which he cannot support, and then says that he thinks it should be allowed to go unchecked. If this be a principle which is contrary to the constitution of this country, then it is our duty either to amend the constitution or to enact legislation which will prevent the circumvention of our constitution and the introduction of a system of-which we are not,, as a people cognizant.
A particular feature of this discussion which must certainly be very gratifying to every member of the House, is the free expression of opinion which we have here. The sentiments of members of the Opposition, as expressed by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's and the leader of the Opposition, go to show that that party with which they are allied do not believe in either the doctrine of the recall, or the doctrine of signing an advance resignation, or the doctrine of having any man who is a candidate in any constituency of this country enter into any agreement which is going to limit or fetter the exercise of his rights as a representative of the people in Parliament. But while it might be expected that the members of the Opposition would take that stand as. one of the old-line parties in this country,, and while we might look for expressions of opinion of that nature from this side of the House, a party which is composed of Liberals and Conservatives.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, all Tories.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Well, I will say they
are all Tories, and I am glad my hon. friends recognize the conversion to the true principles which should govern this country. While I rejoice in that fact, I must say that I was greatly amazed and also greatly delighted when I heard the utterances of the representatives of the National Progressive Party in this country, as they 
have assumed to call themselves, or the agricultural or rural representatives. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. L. Thomson), who is a representative farmer, who supports the policy laid down by the Council of Agriculture of this Dominion, a policy which says that they believe in the initiative, the referendum and the recall-


Levi Thomson: No.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: -that hon. gentleman
standing up in his place in the House says that he is not in favour of the recall. Let us consider the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. 'Clark), the hon. member who speaks with such eloquence, force and decision, the hon. member whose utterances on any question in this House are, so far as he is concerned, the last word to be said. That hon. gentleman, who speaks about myself having a lightning change of attitude, sits in this House as a member of the Farmers' Party in this country, a party which has as its platform the initiative, the referendum and the recall.


Levi Thomson: No.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: In all my experience
in a legislature or in this Parliament, I have never yet witnessed such an exhibition of straddling as the hon. member for Red Deer has given to-day in connection with the stand which he takes on the recall, the advance resignation, or the entering into an agreement with any committee of men in regard to his decisions in the House of Commons. He refers to the amendment which I have moved, and in closing his remarks, he very patronizingly says that that amendment does not appeal to his intelligence. (But I am not responsible, Mr. 'Chairman, for the intelligence of the. hon. member for Red Deer. If I judge from the discussions which have taken place since the moving of my amendment this afternoon, I am sure the amendment appeals to the intelligence of almost every member in this House, and there are in it points which are worthy of consideration and discussion.
When he got up to reply 'he very patronisingly said that he could not congratulate the Opposition, he could not congratulate the supporters of the Government, and least of all could he congratulate the hon. member for West Calgary, the mover of the amendment in regard to their stand. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I do not hold my .seat in this House for the congratulations of the hon. member for Red Deer or anybody else, and if I were looking for congratulations in this House the hon.

member for Red Deer can rest assured that he is not the first man to whom I would appeal for congratulations. He takes the amendment, analyses it, and discusses it. He asks, what does it mean? He says: A man may want to enter into an agreement with his partner, but if this amendment passes he cannot enter into any such agreement Mr. Chairman, a man who has any intelligence, to use the hon. member's words, if he simply reads the amendment will see that it has no reference whatever to business-, but simply to- an agreement which limits the independence- of such person in the performance of his duties as a member in the event of his being elected to -the House of Commons. It has to do only with the performance of the duties of a member of this House, and it is immaterial whether a man enters- into any agreement with his partner in regard to their business relations, as to his willingness to resign or not to resign or business reasons relating only to himself and not to his constituents. It is immaterial whether he enters into an agreement with his wife before he leaves ho-me as to whether he will resign for family reasons. The question is, is he going to be allowed to -enter into any agreement, with -anybody which is going to interfere with his independence as a member of the House -of Commons or of the body in w-hich he sits? He also suggests that so -far as the mover -and the seconder of this amendment are concerned, they evidently did not consider fully the meaning of the amendment. Being an- old parliamentarian, -such as he is, a -man with much greater experience in political life than I have had, -he must realize that when you -are sitting . in Committee of the Whole House -there is simply the mover of the amendment. I have no seconder -and there never was a seconder to this amendment. The hon. member is therefore either ignorant or else he wishes to misinform the House and give a false impression to the people generally. There was no agreement between myself and any member who has spoken on the amendment. Many of those who- have made speeches- on the- amendment never saw it until it was presented. I am perfectly willing to stand on the construction of the amendment as- it stands, and notwithstanding anything that the- hon. member or Red Deer may say in this connection, there was no agreement, no arrangement, no discussion, no argument between those up here who supported that amendment and myself before I introduced it into this House. If he were unable to
found his argument when he is considering a question -s-o serious- and so vital to the people of this country on matters which are mythical I am afraid that a great deal of the eloquence of his -speech and a great deal of the eloquence of many of the speeches which he has made in this Bouse would fade into insignificance. Were he tied down to hard facts in debate, much of the glamour would disappear.
I do not propose to take the time of the House at very great length, but I must refer to a matter in connection with Which the hon. member for Red Deer saw fit to upbraid me, the fact that I read a passage from a speech delivered by the Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke to the -electors of the city of Bristol when he withdrew from that contest. He uses the suggestion that I am founding my argument and backing my principles on the utterances of public men who lived in the latter part of the eighteenth century. It is very true that the Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke -entered the British House of Commons in the year 1765 and for many years- after remained one of the most valued members of that House and one of the greatest statesmen of the British Empire. If I have -a choice between the declarations of the Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke and those of the hon. member for Red Deer, if this House will pardon me, I must state that I am going to accept the views of such an eminent statesman as the Rt. Hon. Mr. Burke.


Michael Clark: Will my hon. friend-


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Sit down.


Michael Clark: I want to explain that I rose for the purpose o-f respectfully requesting-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Red Deer was quite justified in rising for th-e purpose of asking permission to put a question. I understand the hon. member of Calgary will not give way, and therefore, of course, the question cannot be put.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Mr. Chairman, I am
a great believer in fair play. There is an old maxim which says, Do unto others
as they do unto you. My hon. friend from Red Deer did it first; I am going to do it now. I said this -afternoon when he was speaking " I rise to ask a question," but with that rapidity and speed, that vehemence and force, which he can put into effect, he kept right on. He said, " I have the floor and my hon. friend can say what he wishes to say at -a future
n

time." That being the treatment that was accorded me this afternoon by my hon. friend from Bed Deer, I have great pleasure in stating to him now that he can say what he has to say at a future time. As I was about to remark, the gravamen of the charge which the hon. member for Eed Deer held against me this afternoon, although I saw him clapping his desk when I read from the Et. Hon. Edmund Burke's speech, was that I had the presumption to stand up in this House when we were discussing a very vital question and read a passage from an illustrious statesman who entered Parliament in the latter half of the eighteenth century. He says that I founded my doctrine on a statesman who lived in the eighteenth century. That is perfectly true, and if he will go back to Lord Macaulay he will find statements in Lord Macaulay which substantiate those in the speech of the Et. Hon. Mr. Burke. Is it an offence that a member of this House should endeavour to inquire into what has transpired in the past history of Great Britain? Has there ever been a gentleman occupying a seat on the floor of this House who has held higher and oftener waved aloft the traditions of the British Empire than the hon. member for Eed Deer? It is perfectly true that the Et. Hon. Edmund Burke may have lived and taken his seat in Parliament over a hundred years ago, but, Mr. Chairman, if there is any man in this House of Commons who browses amongst musty pages of ancient history for dectum arguments to support his political foibles it is certainly the hon. member for Eed Deer. I have sat in this House and I have watched him roll the Holy Scriptures under his tongue as a sweet morsel, and then thrust from the end of his tongue with venom some single passage therefrom, which he thought would forever silence his opponent. Is there 'any antiquity in the Scriptures? Is there any antiquity in the writings of the prophets or the disciples? Its antiquity is simply a matter of thousands of years. The gentleman who says that the utterances of the past should not come in, is the man who nurtures himself upon antiquity by day and night. I have listened to the hon. member for Eed Deer delivering speeches in this House on many occasions on free trade, and whenever he makes those speeches he gives evidence that he sleeps by day and night with John Bright and Bichard Cobden, whom he never fails to quote on those occasions, who were prominent in the public life of their

native country in the early part of the nineteenth century, almost as ancient as Burke.


The CHAIEMAN:: I must point out to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Tweedie) that we are not discussing the conduct of the hon. member for Eed Deer in this House or elsewhere, but an amendment to clause 39 of the Bill now before the committee.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Mr. Chairman, I was replying to the hon. member for Eed Deer in regard to the questions of personal recall, advance legislation, and initiative, and I thought that it was necessary to look back somewhat into history to ascertain what eminent men, whom the hon. member never tires of quoting, have said. And, if I referred to Burke, I did so not by way of criticism of the hon. gentleman. Indeed, Sir, I think my hon. friend is entitled to abundant commendation from this House for his thorough and indefatigable study of ancient history and economics. I am referring to these things merely to show how valuable an achievement the hon. member for Eed Deer considers it to be to have read ancient history and to be able to cite Cobden and Bright and other eminent men who lived many decades ago, to say nought of the inspiration which one may get from Adam Smith if one desires to make a free trade country of Canada. I *am about to close Mr. Chairman-
Some hon. MEMBEBS: Go on.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: -but I want to point out that it would not be wise for the members of this House to be discouraged because the hon. member for Eed Deer has endeavoured to discourage the reading of history and the speeches and the lives of brilliant statesmen of the past. We should read these works and look back into past history for precedents and endeavour to apply them so far as they may conform to existing circumstances; and if such historic precedents are found to be incompatible with present conditions then let us discard them but evolve from such knowledge as we may acquire principles which may be applied to the present. Now, Sir, I have a word or two to say regarding the hon. gentleman's sincerity.


The CHAIEMAN:: Order. I must ask the hon. member to abide by the ruling just given. This is not the time to discuss the sincerity of the hon. member for Eed Deer.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Mr. Chairman, I
graciously bow to your ruling. I shall not

(question the sincerity of the hon. member, but with your permission, Sir, and by leave of the House, I desire to draw a few comparisons between the hon. member for Red Deer and myself. I think I referred to some remarks of the hon. gentleman in which he says: "His"-that is, Tweedie's- "change of manner is as swift as chain lightning." Let us consider this statement for a moment.
* Mr. MICHAEL CLARK: What I said was "forked lightning." I think you will agree with me, Sir, that I should not have words put into my mouth which I did not use. However, if the hon. member prefers the words "chain lightning " then he can employ them in the comparison.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: 
Georges Henri Boivin: I feel sure that the hon. member for Calgary can reply to the speeefi delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Red Deer without covering ground that is not relevant to the question before the committee.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: My point is this, Mr. Chairman:	The hon. member wishes to
convey the impression to this committee that I changed with lightning rapidity, and I thought it might be somewhat instructive to hon. members if I might metaphorically place myself side by side with the hon. gentleman and let us compare our political race so that our representative speed capacities might be ascertained.


Georges Henri Boivin: The statement having been made this afternoon by the hon. member for Red Deer, the hon. member for Calgary should be allowed to reply by a similar statement. He would not be in order in going back over the entire history of an hon. member's career in order either to justify or to refute any statement that bears no relevance to the question before the committee.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: In deference to you, Mr. Chairman. I shall endeavour not to carry the analogy too far but just to the extent that it may appeal to the "intelligence" of the hon. member for Red Deer. I was about to point out that he had a prominent career as one of the leading Liberals of this country and that while he enjoyed that career I believe I was as devoutly attached to the tenets of the great Liberal Conservative party.


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I do so not in the least because I object to anything my hon.

friend has said but because the Chair, for whom I have always displayed the utmost respect, has been openly defied.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that if I in the least degree have trespassed the rules of the House I am very sorry for it. I only ashed for permission to answer the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer this afternoon and you can rest assured that I shall always obey your ruling, which I have considered to be extremely fair in the past, with the utmost willingness. But the hon. member foT Red Deer seems to like lingering around the time when he was a great supporter of the Liberal party and just immediately I start to get away from that time he rises to a point of order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I feel sure that the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) and the other hon. members of the committee will realise that if every hon. member in discussing this question went into the past history of every other hon. member to this same extent, it would be impossible to make any progress. I must once more respectfully ask him to bring his remarks to bear upon the question before the committee.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Without going into
the past history of the hon. gentleman, I would just say that once we were opposed, then we were united, and now the hon. member is with the National Progressive party. I am with the old party in which we were united. He has beaten me by one lap, which shows greater speed than I had ever dreamed of in my life. There are other instances which I would like to enter into but I feel the hour is getting late and perhaps the House is weary. But I want to point out to the hon. member for Red Deer that in connection with any business before the House I am perfectly willing to transact that business in the usual way, but I do not propose to take lectures from the hon. member in this House, or other persons. If we get a general understanding in this House that one man is not sent here to lecture any or all other members, we will make more rapid progress with the business of the country that is placed before us.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the House and the country as a whole should be delighted that this discussion has taken place here to-day. It has shown that the Liberal party opposes the doctrine of the recall, advance resignations and agreements with committees. The supporters of the Government are opposed

to the recall, advance resignations and agreements with committees. Two men who spoke for the National Progressive party, of which there are some eight members in this House, repudiate the doctrine, and two more stand up and say that if they get GO or 75 per cent of the electors in their constituency to sign a petition for them to go home, they will go. There has not been one man stand up in this House to-day aud say that he believes in the advance resignation, that he believes in signing any agree- * ment limiting the performance of his duty as a member or that he believes in placing the control of his seat in this House in the hands of a few men.	_
Following the suggestion of the Acting Solicitor General, who has charge of the Bill and the suggestions of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen s and the leader of the Opposition, I shall be glad to withdraw this amendment and leave it to the further consideration of the Government.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the pleasure of
the committee that the hon. member have leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. W. H. WHITE:: I wish to register my protest against an hon. member taking five . or six hours of our time for the entertainment and amusement of the House without having in any way mentioned the measure that is at present before us. I object to allowing this committee to be experimented with in that way. I believe the object of the hon. member (Mr. Tweedie) was to get the feeling of the House, and I am convinced that if he had expected that he would achieve any measure of success he would have pressed the question to a vote. He has either gone too far or he has not gone far enough. If it is worth while to have an expression of opinion it is worth while to have a division. [DOT] Then we will have a real expression. I might also point out another objection that I have to the proceeding that has taken place. Upon two or three nights during the present week, the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie), who is in charge.of this Bill, has complained that its progress has been hindered by Opposition obstruction.


Hugh Guthrie: I have never made such a complaint.


William Henry White: Well then I will
withdraw that remark and I will say that he has complained about the early rising of the committee. To-night when an hon.

gentleman who was speaking upon a matter that had no bearing upon this Bill at all, and was simply amusing the House, announced his intention of concluding his remarks, the minister called out, "go on; go on." Therefore, there is no sincerity at all in the statement of the minister that the Opposition are in any way lacking in a desire to proceed with public business, or that they are responsible for keeping the Bill before the House.
As the hon. member for West Calgary did not mention the amendment in my hearing to-night I do not understand why there is so much alarm about this recall. An organization outside of this House, one that has nothing to do with it, in its little union, or lodge, or whatever they call it, passes a resolution setting forth the principles upon which its members are willing to agree. I cannot see that in that there is anything that it is the business of this House to object to. If it were not for an agreement made by hon. gentlemen in 1917 there would not be any Union party to-day. Men came down here tied and bound by the conditions of an agreement which they had subscribed to, stipulating what they should do when they came here. I am not going to discuss that; I know it would not be in order but I would like to ask the Liberal Unionist members on the other side what their agreement was with the Union party?


William Cameron Edwards: Were the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) parties to that agreement?


William Henry White: I would think so. I did not enter into the agreement therefore I do not know what it is, but I read the platform of the Liberal Unionist party and it was stated that they had agreed to support the Government, and they appealed to the electors for that reason. Therefore they come down under exactly the same conditions with a pledge; the Farmer members come pledged to support the Farmers' platform. Many of them got a recall last winter, but they did not respond. In two or three constituencies, after they had failed to fulfil their agreement and were recalled, they did not stand for it.
In order that I may not be misunderstood I wish to say that I am not a member of that organization, but on the contrary have always been opposed by it. As far back as 1911 I was opposed by the Secretary of the United Farmers' Union, although the issue at that time was reciprocity. Their candidate ran as a third 131
man and opposed me although he stood on the same platform that I did. That gentleman signed a recall. I can remember the date on which he signed it, and the fact that half a dozen members of the organization went down and saw that the document was signed and sealed in the Merchants Bank in Vegreville-and I may say in passing that it is still there. So that the recall is not a dangerous thing, sometimes indeed it is very harmless. It is not a thing that will do harm to any one. It did not harm me in 1917 when 1 had a difficult election coming on and did not take the popular side on the questions at issue. Another man-a member of the same organization, in the person of Ex-Governor Leedy of Kansas-called himself a nonpartisan and stood on the same platform that I occupied as a supporter of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I think those people were the first to initiate the policy. ExGovernor Leedy had his recall all right but it did not affect my election. I think hon. gentlemen opposite-particularly the member for West Calgary and some of the other Western members-are being stampeded with the fear that possibly this organization is going to meet with so much success that it will be difficult for them to secure any seats in that part of the province. If that is the view they entertain I agree with them. I believe the movement will be successful. At the same time, I do not see why the farmers, or any class' of people, should not have the right to make conditions with their candidates the same as the Union Government did at the last general election. The Union Government at that time made an agreement with their candidates that they would support certain measures if elected. Perhaps, after all, those who are to blame for this movement are hon. gentlemen opposite, many of whom belonged to Farmers' organizations at the time of the last general election. At that time they told their electors that they only meant to support the Government on war measures, but that on the fiscal policy of the country and other questions they would adhere to the Farmers' platform. Many of them failed to carry out their promise, and perhaps it was for that reason that the recall plank was inserted in the Farmers* platform, so that in future when members do not live up to their pledges the people will have a right to recall them. My own opinion is that the opposition to it is merely an exemplification of the old Tory distrust of the people. They are afraid of the people. They drew]



this organization, which is growing all the time, and they are afraid to trust the people when the time comes for an election. They see something wrong about the Farmers' movement because these people band themselves together and pass by-laws that in my opinion have nothing to do with this Parliament. On several occasions this session I have noticed that when labour legislation, and other Bills of the same character were introduced, and the National Progressive members did not take part in the debate, attention was called to the fact and complaint was made that they did not support the measures in question, or else that they did object to some Bill. Criticism was levelled against them on both grounds. I think to-day's amendment is another example of the same policy. It has been introduced more with the idea of trying to draw out and get even with the members [DOT]of the Progressive party at the other end of the Chamber than from any other motive. As the leader of the Opposition has said: Let the people rule. If a majority of electors in any constituency are in ' favour of the recall they have a right to enter into any arrangement they may care to make with their representative. For my part, I have always been opposed to calling upon members to sign recalls. I do not suppose I shall ever be asked to sign such a thing altihoiugih there is very little difference 'between our party and tlheirs. The difference between us is of the nature that was described a few days ago by an hon. member when he remarked that on one occasion Lord Salisbury said that, "Gladstone was an old man in a hurry". II think the only difference between our friends at the other end of the Chamber and ourselves is that perhaps they are a little in a hurry. They are probably a little more advanced than we are, but they are standing on the same platform. We are pretty nearly agreed with them with the exception of what 'I may term these few "progressive" planks that have been adopted by them. The amendment of course has ibeen withdrawn-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Henry White: I should rather say the
request has been made that it should be withdrawn. I do' not think it is right that after so much valuable time has been taken up in discussing it ithe hon. member who moved the amendment should be allowed to withdraw it. The amendment should go to a vote in order that every member

of the committee might record where he stands.


Michael Clark: I do not rise for the
purpose of continuing the debate on this question, but simply for the purpose of removing a misapprehension which I would gladly have done earlier if the minister (Mr. Guthrie) had displayed his usual courtesy and granted me an opportunity. My purpose in rising is to read three lines of the platform of the Dominion Council of Agriculture on the question before the House. The minister seemed to base his support of the amendment on some idea he had that there was a secret agreement mentioned in the platform of the Council of Agriculture. My only purpose in rising is to say that no secret agreement whatsoever is mentioned in that platform; the word "agreement" is not mentioned at all. The plank in the platform reads thus:
The establishment of measures of direct legislation through the initiative, referendum and recall.
Amendment (Mr. Tweedie) negatived. Clause agreed to.
On clause 101-Act to apply in elections under Canada Temperance Act:


Hugh Guthrie: 
Mr. STEELE:: Does that mean that the lists will be prepared in each constituency as they are in a general election?


Hugh Guthrie: In this case it will foe in the province instead of in the whole Domin-

ion, but the lists will be prepared in each constituency.


Levi Thomson: In preparing the lists for an ordinary election, the persons whose names may be placed on that list must have resided in Canada for twelve months prior to the issue of the writ. Will the provision in this case be that the residence in Canada shall he twelve months prior to the issue of the proclamation?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Levi Thomson: That is made clear in the Act?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: I am opposed to the adoption of this clause, because it provides that the Act shall apply to elections held under the Canada Temperance Act. My view is that public moneys should not be expended in order to hold referendums in the various provinces on such questions as prohibition or prohibitory legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Charles Gavan Power: My point is this: It is quite possible that the Canada Temperance Act may be repealed; it might even be repealed this year. I would like the minister either to suspend this clause or not to amend it so as to make it easier for provinces to come to the Dominion Government and ask for the use of federal funds every time they wish to hold a referendum or to change their mii^ds with reference to prohibition or prohibitory legislation. As I understand it, the minister's point of order is that we have so amended the Canada Temperance Act as to provide that referendums may be held under it, and that 'these shall be governed by the Dominion Elections Act. To that I reply that it is not within our province to make it easier, by the provisions of this Act, for the local legislatures or local bodies to hold any such referendums. If the minister's point of order is well taken, then I *may not proceed; if it is not, I shall proceed to discuss the matter.


Georges Henri Boivin: Any discussion of the results of the application of any province to the Federal Government for a referendum under the Canada Temperance Act would not be in order upon this clause.


Lucien Cannon: With .further reference to what the hon. member (Mr. Powct) has 131i
said, I do not wish to get in conflict with your decision, Mr. Chairman; I simply wish to direct the attention of the minister to the following facts. The Temperance Act is either complete or it is not. If it is complete, it must contain provisions for the taking of referendums; if it is not complete, it ought to be completed.


Hugh Guthrie: That, of course, may be done by another Act.


Lucien Cannon: Exactly. Why put in the electoral law of Canada a clause which has exclusive relation to the Canada Temperance Act? This clause ought to be inserted in the Canada Temperance Act, not in the Franchise Act.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the hon. member (Mr. Cannon) is absolutely right in his contention. This clause should be put in the Canada Temperance Act, not here.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Canada Temperance Act itself provides that the persons who shall be entitled to vote under it are such persons as would be entitled to vote at a Dominion election held on the day of the plebiscite under the Temperance Act. Now, this Act .simply says that the provisions which apply to everybody who is entitled to vote at a Dominion election shall apply in the case of a vote taken under the Canada Temperance Act. It is simply meeting the express provision of the Canada Temperance Act.


Lucien Cannon: The remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) complete my remarks. I said that the Canada Temperance Act was either complete or incomplete. The minister tell us that it is complete. Therefore, this clause is useless.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not say that; I said that this, clause completes it.


Lucien Cannon: If the Canada Temperance Act says that the referendum is to be taken according to the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, why put this clause into the Dominion Elections Act having reference to the Canada Temperance Act? The clause in the Canada Temperance Act, of which the Minister of Justice has just spoken, renders this clause without any purpose or use.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When that enactment was made in the Canada Temperance Act, there was then an Act of the Dominion of Canada, determining who it was that voted at the elections for this Parliament held under that Act; and .the Canada Temper-

ance Act, taking the existing condition of things, enacted that persons entitled under then existing legislation to vote at a Dominion election would he entitled to vote under the Canada Temperance Act. We are changing the whole law governing who is to vote at Dominion elections-, and the purpose of the provision under discussion is simply to make it clear that, as this measure changes the class of persons entitled to vote and the provisions with regard to voting at Dominion -elections, it -shall in the future apply for the purpose of implementing -and carrying out that express provision o-f the Canada Temperance Act.


Ernest Lapointe: Then, I submit that the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) had a right to raise the question he raised. When the Canada Temperance Act was enacted and provisions were made for a referendum to he taken, the provincial lists were to 'be used for the purpose of taking that referendum. With this new clause in this Bill, neiw lists will have to be prepared -for the special purpose of taking that referendum, and the cost of that ,will -be paid (by this Government. That means -that if the Provincial Government of Ontario- take a referendum, lists will be prepared under this Bill that will co-st, perhaps, $500,000, and that amount will he paid by this country. As I -stated before, ,when the Canada Temperance Act was passed, it was not contemplated that we should have- to prepare special lists as will have to be prepared under clause 101. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Power) was right in complaining that such a tremendous cost -should be forced upon this country. If the province of Ontario or any other province -wants to take a referendum this year, or next year, or the following year, let that province pay for it. I am certainly in order, and my ho-n. friend (Mr. Power) was in order, in- opposing this clause on that ground.


Charles Gavan Power: 
Hugh Guthrie: I do not think there is anything to he gained by so doing; but if my hon. friend wants to let this clause stand until clause 32 has been discussed and passed, I am quite agreeable.
Section 101 stands.

On section 29-qualification of electors:


Hugh Guthrie: Some days ago I gave notice that, when this clause was considered,
I would move an amendment. I, therefore, move to amend clause 29 by adding, as paragraph (d) of subclause 1, the following words:
(d) Provided, however, that any Indian ordinarily resident on an Indian Reserve who has served in the naval, military or air forces of Canada in the late war shall be qualified to vote, unless such Indian is otherwise disqualified under paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of this section.


Lucien Cannon: How could he be "otherwise disqualified"?


Hugh Guthrie: He might not have the residential and age qualifications, for instance.


Jacques Bureau: Is the idea that the man who has served in the army or navy and is not twenty-one has not the right to vote? He is disfranchised?


Hugh Guthrie: Under the amendment I have proposed the Indian who has served with the forces would only be entitled to vote when he complies with all the -other requisites in regard to British citizenship, residence and age.


Ernest Lapointe: Why limit it to Indians who are ordinarily resident on a reserve?


Hugh Guthrie: Indians who are living on a reserve and who are receiving the bounty of the Government are the wards of the Government and they have nearly always been disqualified under our Dominion Franchise Acts.


Ernest Lapointe: But there are Indians who are not living on a reserve, and they have no right to vote unless they are enfranchised. There are many Indians who are working and living outside the reserve. They have no right to vote at the present time, but why shouldn't they vote if they have served in the army or navy?


Hugh Guthrie: Any Indian not ordinarily resident on an Indian reserve is entitled to vote provided he has the other qualifications.


Ernest Lapointe: When he is on a reserve he will not vote.


Hugh Guthrie: If he is ordinarily resident on an Indian reserve he will not vote.


Ernest Lapointe: Why?	*


Hugh Guthrie: Because he is looked on as a ward of the Government.


Mr. JACOBS:: I am rather in favour of this clause. I think that any person who
is in receipt of assistance from the Government, or who can be influenced by the Government, ought not to have the right to vote. It is an easy matter to see how they would vote if they had that right.


Lucien Cannon: What about an Indian who has served with the forces and who is not resident on an Indian reserve, but lives outside at a nearby village? Near Quebec there is an Indian reserve at Lorette. Some of the Indians live on the reserve, but others who are emancipated live in the village of Lorette outside.


Hugh Guthrie: They are not disqualified under this clause.


Lucien Cannon: Under the amendment an Indian requires two essential qualifications in order to vote. First, he must have served in the army or navy or with the air forces, and secondly, he must be ordinarily resident on an Indian reserve.


Hugh Guthrie: Off the reserve.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Suppose an Indian had served in the late war and lived on a reservation, would he be entitled to vote?


Lucien Cannon: The amendment reads:
Provided, however, that any Indian ordinarily resident on an Indian Reserve who has served in the Naval, Military or Air forces of Canada in the late war shall be qualified to vote.


Ernest Lapointe: The minister said the amendment read: "Not ordinarily resident." Which is right?


Hugh Guthrie: It seems to be so simple as not to need explanation. A man-is qualified to vote, not being an Indian ordinarily resident on an Indian reserve. The meaning of that is that an Indian who is ordinarily resident on a reserve has no vote. But if such an Indian residing on a reserve served in the army or navy or air forces he will have the right to vote provided he has the other qualifications.


Mr. HAROLD:: Will an Indian who is not a resident on an Indian reserve and who is not enfranchised have the right to vote?


Hugh Guthrie: Unless there is some special disfranchising Act. This Act does not disqualify him. This Act only disfranchises an Indian ordinarily resident on an Indian reserve. I know of no other disfranchising Act. It may be that the Indian Act provides that an Indian in receipt of bounty shall not vote, but I am not sure about that.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend (Mr. Cannon) is absolutely right. The Act provides that an Indian ordinarily resident on an Indian reserve who has served in the army or navy or air forces shall have the right to vote, but there is nothing here giving the right to vote to a man who does not reside on a reserve but has served with the forces.


Hugh Guthrie: He does not need it. He is not disqualified. There is nothing in the Act that will disqualify a man who does not reside on a reserve.


Jacques Bureau: He may be a member of the band, subject to all the rules of the band, and live outside the reserve.


Hugh Guthrie: There is nothing in this Act that disqualifies him.


Mr.   GANNON@: As the law stands now, under the Indian Act an Indian is absolutely disfranchised. An Indian, to cease to be an Indian, has to be emancipated or enfranchised under the procedure laid down in the Indian Act. If that procedure has not been followed, and if the Indian has served in the late war and does not reside on an Indian reserve but in a nearby village the amendment does not give him the right to vote, I think he ought to have it. We have a reserve at Lorette near Quebec. Some members of the tribe live on the reserve and others in the village. Those living in the village have no right to vote unless they are enfranchised. I know that some of the members of this tribe have served in the war. By this amendment they would not be entitled to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: This Act is pretty specific in its provisions. I am not sure what is in the Indian Act, but I am inclined to think from what I have heard around me that there is some disqualification in that Act of an Indian who is in receipt of money from the Government. They are looked on as wards of the Government. This Act won't interfere with them. There is no disqualification in this Act except of the Indian ordinarily resident on a reserve, and even they have the right to vote if they have served with the forces and are not otherwise disqualified. If he resides off the reserve he is not disqualified under this Act.


Mr. PARDEE:: Yes he is, unless he is enfranchised.


Hugh Guthrie: If he is off the reserve this Act does not disqualify him. It only disqualifies the Indian on the reserve.


Ernest Lapointe: But the Indian off the reserve i! disqualified by law until he is enfranchised. At the present time we have a Committee of this House studying the whole Indian question, and some members of the Committee are in favour of compulsorily enfranchising the Indians who live off the reserve because they are no longer wards of the Government. There are certain disabilites; they cannot be sued for debt, and so on. 'So my hon. friend is wrong when he says the Indians living off the reserve will have the right to vote. They will have that right only when they are enfranchised under the law.


Hugh Guthrie: Any disability is not under this Act; it is under the Indian Act. -


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Hugh Guthrie: The other Act may be amended when the House sees fit to amend it. There is no disability under this Act except as against Indians who live on the reserve.


Lucien Cannon: Why not strike out the words "Indian ordinarily resident on an Indian reserve."


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I think there is something in the Indian Act which provides that unless an Indian renounces his tribal allegiance he has no vote.


Hugh Guthrie: If he does renounce his tribal allegiance and then goes back to the reserve he cannot vote under this section.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is an Indian who was not enfranchised but who served in the war and is now living off the reservation, entitled to vote?


Hugh Guthrie: Not if the Indian Act says not.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why not? If an Indian served in the war and is thus entitled to vote, why should he not vote, whether he lives on or off the reserve?


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps we had better look at the Indian Act; we have so many different opinions.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The minister says, and this Act provides, that the man who is ordinarily resident on an Indian reservation and who has served with the air or military forces shall be entitled to vote.
'Mr. GUTHRIE: Yes.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: If a man is not ordinarily resident on a reservation, what is his status?


Hugh Guthrie: He can vote anywhere.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No, not unless he is enfranchised.


Hugh Guthrie: This Act declares that he shall have the vote.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No, it does not declare that. Only the man ordinarily resident on the reservation shall vote. Now, why should the man who is not on the reservation but who served in the war not be entitled to vote? That is the point.
Mr. HARO'LD: This point must be made clear. When our committee was sitting, we had before us Lieut. Martin, of Toronto. He is at present living in that city and has not a vote ordinarily because he is attached to the band and is not enfranchised. I think, therefore, that this amendment should cover those. Indians off the reservation.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Exactly.


Hugh Guthrie: I move to strike out of the amendment the words " ordinarily resident on an Indian reserve."


John Harold: Will the minister consider giving the vote to the wives of the Indians?


Hugh Guthrie: No; we give the Indians the vote only because of their war service.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend clause 29 by adding to the said clause the following words:
Provided that no disability imposed by paragraph (b) of subsection 4 of section 8 of "The Naturalization Act", chapter thirty-eight of the statutes of 1919 (first session), shall disentitle a person on that ground alone to the said certificate.


Mr. EULER:: When the principle of this clause was discussed on the second reading of the Bill some weeks ago and it was realized that the clause, when read with a certain clause in the Naturalization Act, would disfranchise probably one hundred thousand British subjects, I was very much gratified to hear the pronouncement from the Government, through the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), that it was not the intention of the Government that there should be such an effect, and further that an amendment would be introduced later on that would remove the injustice. That amendment is now before us, and I may say frankly, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that a better remedy would have consisted in striking
out that part of the clause altogether. I shall speak of that very briefly a little later. It is impossible to discuss the amendment intelligently without discussing to some extent at least the Naturalization Act. Indeed, I think there is even now in the House, and perhaps throughout the country, a very considerable misconception as to the purport of the Bill as it stands _ and of this amendment as it is now proposed. There are two groups of people who have been discussed in connection with this Bill, and the reason for that is to be found in the Naturalization Act that was passed last year, particularly section 8. I have no desire to transgress the rules, but I think it is necessary that I should make some reference to the Naturalization Act in connection with this subject. In section 8 of that Act provision was made that no persons of enemy alien origin could be naturalized in Canada without living in this country for ten years after the conclusion of peace. That provision embraced people who had lived in Canada for a great many years, and I discussed that question at the time and made an objection to the principle of applying that provision to men who had lived in this country for so many years, many of whom had considered themselves British subjects and many of whom had voted in the past. However, it was said at the time that it was necessary to draft the clause in that form because of the requirements of the British Government, who desired that all certificates issued in the future by the Canadian Government should carry with them Imperial naturalization. It was also promised by the Prime Minister at that time that he would make representations to the British Government to have that matter modified. That has not as yet been done, but I understand from interviews with certain members of the Government that application has been made to the British Government and that action may be expected. I should like to say, by the way, that if that cannot be obtained I would suggest to the Government that in all fairness they should introduce some legislation whereby these people might be given, if not Imperial naturalization, at least Canadian naturalization, which would meet the requirements of nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand of those who would like (Canadian naturalization to peirmit them to vote. This would be all the more reasonable, because we know as a matter of fact to-day that the man in Canada who was formerly an enemy alien, or at least
!058

who was born in Germany or Austria and who has Canadian naturalization, finds it absolutely impossible to get the Imperial naturalization certificate even though he served in the war. If these people could get Canadian naturalization that would remedy the matter, as far as the franchise is concerned.
The amendment as proposed does not affect those people of enemy alien origin who cannot be naturalized for another ten years. I think there is an impression throughout the country-I know I have met with it in my own constituency-that by this amendment all those who cannot be naturalized until they have lived in Canada for ten years will now he able to vote. I think it should be made perfectly clear that people who have not been naturalized are not affected by this amendment at all, and that it only deals with those who are British subjects by operation of law. The people who are spoken of as British subjects by operation of law are those who are naturalized by reason of the naturalization of their fathers, in the case of children and minors, or those who are naturalized by reason of the naturalization of their husbands in the case of the wives of these men. In the Bill as it was presented these people would have been prevented from voting and I think, with the exception of one point that I desire to bring out briefly, the amendment as proposed by the Acting Solicitor General will make it possible under certain conditions that these people now receive the franchise.
The point I wish to raise is a legal one, and perhaps it may seem somewhat presumptuous for one who is not a lawyer to raise it. It is a point that I discussed with the Acting Solicitor General. He did not think there was any force in it. I discussed it with certain other members of the House who are learned in the law, some on this side and one or two on the other side, and in order that the opinion which I myself have on the point might be supported or otherwise by someone who could not in any way be considered a partisan, I drew it to the attention of a gentleman who has a great deal to do with matters of this kind in connection with naturalization and discussed it with him. That was the Under Secretary of State, Mr. Thomas Mulvey. When I placed it before him and asked him for his opinion, he said that the meaning which I took out of it was correct, and that at the very best it would be doubtful whether under certain sections of the Naturalization Act the right to vote which

would be given by the amendment now proposed, would not again be taken away. I am bringing the point out now, not for the purpose of raising any objection but simply to make absolutely certain that the declared intention of the Government to give the franchise to these people shall be carried out.
The point is as follows: Under section 29, which we are now discussing, a certificate may be given to those British subjects who are British subjects by operation of the law. The certificate is given to:
Every person who is naturalized as a British subject by operation of law who, but for such naturalization, is qualified and would be entitled at the date of this certificate to be personally naturalized in Canada.
For these hundred thousand people who are naturalized by operation of law it will be necessary, before they can vote, to go before a judge and prove to him that they are qualified for personal naturalization. They are not required, as I take it, to actually secure that personal naturalization, but they must have the qualification before he can issue a certificate to that effect which certificate gives them the right to vote. In the Naturalization Act, section 5, subsection 3, there is the following clause:
Except as provided by this Act, a certificate of naturalization shall not be granted to any person under disability.
The word "disability" is defined in section 33 paragraph (d) as follows:
The expression "disability" means the status of being a married woman, or a minor, lunatic or idiot.
What I have particular reference to in this connection is that the expression "disability" means the status of being a married woman. In the Act itself there appears to be no provision whatever for the personal naturalization of a married woman who is already a British subject, because her husband is a naturalized British subject. Therefore it would seem that when such a woman appeared before the judge and asked for a certificate which would give 'her the right to vote the judge would very naturally say to her that he is not entitled to issue a certificate of personal naturalization because there is no provision for the naturalization of a married woman who is already a British subject by operation of law.
The Acting Solicitor General did not agree with that view, as I have said before, and I have no doubt he will place his view on that point before the committee. If there is anything in it at all, the amend-

ment which has been offered by him should be so framed that all possible doubt will be removed and that the object that is sought to be attained by the amendment will be fully carried out, and so that those who are British subjects by operation of law will find there is no obstacle placed in the way of their obtaining certificates and being allowed to vote.
I said a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, that in my opinion the best remedy would be to strike the paragraph out altogether. It would make it very much more simple, there could be no doubt whatever about it, and it would base the franchise broadly upon the fact of British citizenship, which seems altogether fair and which would carry out the principle enunciated by the Acting Solicitor General himself when he introduced the Bill in the first place.
The point I want to make is that people affected by the amendment are already British subjects, and while I have no fault to find with the principle that is sought to be enacted here, that every alien should receive personal naturalization, it does not seem to me to be altogether fair that the principle should be made retroactive and that you should force British subjects, many of whom have voted in the past, to again appear before a judge in order that they may obtain a certificate. Indeed the chief objection that I have to that is this: I think it is altogether likely that in a great many instances these people will not appear before the judge, for various reasons. One of these reasons might quite conceivably be a certain matter of pride. For example take the case of the men who may have voted for ten or fifteen years, ever since they came of age, and who were naturalized because their fathers were naturalized. I do not see why these men should be placed in a separate class and again be asked to prove that they are fit for citizenship and for the exercise of the franchise; it seems to me they might very-well be excused from that. Again, I believe it is altogether probable that in many cases the names of these people- wives of naturalized British subjects, and men naturalized by operation of law-will be placed on the voters' lists, and they will assume that they are entitled to vote. They will take no further trouble in connection with the matter. They will appear at the polls, and then it may be quite possible that somebody will object, will ask them for the certificate, and as they will not have it, they will be deprived of the franchise at that time. It seems to me that that should be avoided.
It would be quite fair, I think, that the law might apply to all newcomers or those who are naturalized in the future, but that it should be made retroactive, it seems to me, is not fair at all. I would ask the Government in that connection not to have their amendment stop short of giving complete justice to these people, but to strike out the paragraph altogether, and let the franchise be the inseparable and logical accompaniment of mature citizenship, and give the vote to all who are British subjects of the proper age.


Hugh Guthrie: The question raised by my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) is not without some complexity. Under the Bill as originally introduced- clause 29, subclause 2-the intention of the Government in framing the clause was hardly expressed by the language used, as was pointed out on the second reading of the Bill by the Minister of the Interior. The effect of the clause as originally drawn, and now printed in the Bill, would be to disqualify a certain number of people in this country who had heretofore become British subjects by operation of law. The people who would have been thus disqualified, were the section allowed to remain in its present condition, were the wives and children of those who had come to this country from foreign countries and obtained naturalization in Canada during their minority. As the committee is well aware, the wife of an alien who becomes naturalized in this country, under our law, becomes a British subject. The wife did not have to appear and obtain the certificate of naturalization-she became a British subject by operation of law by the fact of her marriage. Under the old common law idea she merged her existence, her identity became merged in her husband, and by operation of law she became a British subject. So it was also with the children who were minors at the time the parent became a British subject. Not so with the children who had come to the age of twenty-one years. They retained their original citizenship until they should themselves apply for naturalization in this country. My hon. friend from North Waterloo was, I think, the first to point out, during the debate on the second reading of this Bill, that the clause as drawn, had the effect of depriving a certain number of British subjects of the right to the franchise. The Minister of the Interior very promptly informed the House that such was not intended-that if that were the interpretation of the language of the section it did not convey the intention of the Government-and

and distant past did obtain naturalization certificates which have since become lost or destroyed, or the records in connection with which have become obliterated. At all events, we have at the present time in various ridings in Ontario very old and very worthy people of German descentpossibly of Austrian descent, too

who
cannot establish the fact that they are British subjects. They may say that they have voted for twenty, thirty or forty years. I have personal knowledge of some instances, because the admission was made to me, in which men who had voted had never been naturalized.
It has been argued that these people should not now be deprived of the right to be naturalized, though in section 8 of our Naturalization Act we have adopted the Imperial clause' that provides that people of a former alien enemy state shall not be entitled to naturalization for ten years after the conclusion of peace. The situation is not a happy one; but it is one that has arisen, I think, largely on account of lack of interest or carelessness of the individuals themselves who did not see to it in years gone by that they were properly naturalized, or who were so careless in regard to the matter that the records became lost or the certificates were destroyed and they are unable to establish the fact now. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) makes a suggestion to meet the difficulty; he made it last session. He has made it, I think, privately to the Prime Minister (Sir .Robert Borden), and his request has been promised, and has received, consideration. His proposal is this: That we in Canada have still the power to pass a Canadian Naturalization Act and that we should pass a Canadian Naturalization Act and by that means give these people the Canadian franchise. The matter has, however, assumed more than a Canadian aspect. We have passed an Imperial Naturalization Act which gives us the right to confer upon the people of this country citizenship throughout the British Empire. We passed that Act with our eyes open, making it on all fours with Acts passed in the other British Dominions. We passed it deliberately after a long experience during which we granted Canadian citizenship after three years' residence in this country, good only within Canada, and such a Canadian citizen who left Canada was not a British subject. In fact, I am told that high dignitaries of this country went as representatives of this country to Great Britain and found when they got there that

they were not British subjects, simply because they had only Canadian naturalization. Now a man who gets a certificate of naturalization in this country, is justified in believing that he is a British subject throughout the British Empire. My hon. friend (Mr. Euler) says: You have it in your power to give Canadian naturalization. Deliberately, we rejected that old system and adopted a new one; we placed ourselves on a par with the other Dominions and the Motherland herself, and that was done after full consideration of all the circumstances. I think it was last session that the Prime Minister promised my hon. friend that he would fully consider the matter and take it up with the Imperial authorities. Doubtless the failure of his health and his consequent absence from this country prevented him from doing so personally although he started the negotiations. I am able, however, to tell the committee that the negotiations have proceeded, but they have not proceeded to that extent that the Government is able to announce that an arrangement has yet been reached.
I do not know if a satisfactory arrangement can be looked for in the near future. Personally, I am inclined to think this is one of the matters that may be discussed at the Imperial Conference to be held in 1921, although I cannot give the committee any more than my opinion in that regard. It is certain that up to the present moment we have not received the assent of Great Britain to that proposal. Shall we deliberately derogate from our own Act and create a new status after having deliberately overthrown the old status and accepted the Imperial one? I do not think it will be a very long time for us to wait until we have a final decision. It may be that there will not be any great necessity for voting in the interval; I hope there will not, but as to that no one can speak with any confidence. That, however, is the situation. The object of the present amendment is to make definite and certain that every one who is actually a British subject shall enjoy the right to vote, and if the amendment that I have moved does not make that clear, we shall make it clear if a better method can be suggested.


Ernest Lapointe: Who will be the persons, British subjects by operation of the law, who will remain disqualified or who will be unable to obtain a certificate entitling them to vote under this clause as amended? Will there remain any such persons?


Hugh Guthrie: No one who is a British subject.


Ernest Lapointe: Then, what is the purpose of subclause 2 of clause 29 if every person will be able to vote?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not quite catch my hon. friend's meaning.


Ernest Lapointe: I want to know who are those who will be unable to obtain a certificate giving them the right to vote?


Hugh Guthrie: Those who could not go personally and get naturalized; those who depend only on their marriage or their parentage could not obtain naturalization under subclause 2.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: In that class will be included those who do not have a good knowledge of the English or the French language.


Hugh Guthrie: That would be a disqualification. Any one who could not comply with the qualifications of our Naturalization Act, which include a knowledge of either the French or the English language, would be disqualified.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Might I ask the Acting
Solicitor General, in opening, if those who were aliens and who had already become naturalized prior to the Nautralization Act of 1919, are stdl entitled to vote?


James Alexander Calder: A male?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes. He became naturalized prior to the Naturalization Act of 1919. Is he still entitled to vote?


Hugh Guthrie: I shall have to examine the clauses of the Naturalization Act as>
to that. I have them before me, but I have not time to examine them just now. It may be there is some discretion. He would have formerly one of the limited certificates, good only in Canada. My hon. friend Tefers only as to the vote, not as to obtaining Imperial citizenship?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I am speaking only in
regard to the right to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, he can vote, but
he has to make a new application if he desires to get an Imperial certificate, or a certificate under the Act of 1919.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: But in order to vote at
any succeeding election, he has not to get a new certificate, provided that he was naturalized1 prior to 1919, even though that Naturalization Act was passed in that year?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think there is any doubt that a man who has heretofore been naturalized1 under the law of this country as that law stood at the time of the issue of his certificate, has a right to vote, and his wife would be a British subject according to law.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Would she have a right to vote?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. Unless she were
a person born in North America, she would have to apply to a judge to show that she would have a right to vote, to get a certificate.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Even though the husband is entitled to vote owing to naturalization prior to the Naturalization Act of 1919 and his wife thereby became a British subject prior to 1919, the husband would not have to apply again and would be entitled to vote, but the wife would have to apply for a new certificate?


Hugh Guthrie: No, she would have to
apply to the judge, before voting, for a certificate under this clause., [DOT]


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: In other words; although she became a British subject by operation of law, owing to the fact that her husband was naturalized prior to the Naturalization Act of 1919 and is still a British subject for the purpose of the franchise, his wife would still have to obtain a certificate in order to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, it is to meet her case that this clause was drawn.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: But this would have no
bearing at all on the man himself?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I ask the Acting Solicitor General these questions by reason of the fact that the other day I received from a very eminent barrister, who has had much to do with the naturalization of these people, a latter in which he states:
The Government of Canada in 1917 took cognizance of the fact that there were many aliens who had resided in Canada for many years whose sympathies were with the United Kingdom as its Allies in the Great War and who had no Pro-German or other alien affiliations. This fact was officially recognized particularly in Orders in Council No. 2552 and No. 2948. Thereupon the Department of the Secretary of State published in pamphlet form the Naturalization Act of 1914 with Amendments, the Orders in Council and the departmental regulations applicable to naturalization.
The Act and the regulations prescribed all the steps necessary to be taken by an alien in order to perfect his naturalization. He was told that he must post up a notice, a*** Gutnish cer-

tain facts, and attend before the clerk of the Court to sign a petition, and then, finally, appear before the County Judge and give evidence to show that he had qualified under the Act.
The Orders in Council, the Regulations and the pamphlet freely distributed practically constituted an invitation to those who came within the meaning of the Act to come forward and become British subjects and Canadian citizens. Scores responded to the invitation. In the county of Grey about one hundred and fifty made application. I dealt with a number of these applications myself. Looking over these applications I see that some of them came to Canada in infancy; some at the age of four or five years; I believe that the majority of them came -when under ten years of age ; few came after twenty years of age; some of them had lived in Canada for sixty years; they practically knew no other country; ninety per cent of these men were told by the politicians of the day that they were qualified to vote if they would only swear that they were British subjects and they were told that all that was necessary was to take the oath of allegiance. Not knowing any better they believed that they were British .subjects and voted as such at every election. They occupied positions of municipal trust, took a general interest in Canadian affairs and lived irreproachable lives so far as law and order are concerned. When the war broke out they were more or less opposed to Germany because the parents of many of these men had left Germany t<f avoid the burden of military service.
These men followed diligently the regulations prescribed by'the department, engaged counsel and paid the fees prescribed by the Government, and to that extent enriched the Treasury, attended at the County Town once or twice and incurred expenses in connection with their naturalization varying from $25 to $35.
The applications were heard by the County Judges. Those who, in the opinion of the County Judge, who, from his local knowledge is best able to ascertain the1 facts, gave satisfactory evidence had their applications approved. Those who did not satisfy him were rejected.
A very large number of these applications were heard at the end of June 1919. Two weeks afterwards, on the 7th of July, 1919, the present Naturalization Act became law and these applicants, who had been for months making their applications, found that certificates would not be granted for a further period of ten years when the majority of them would be in their graves.
I need hardly say that solicitors who, like myself, had prepared the applications for these men and advised them as to the steps to take and the circumstances under which certificates would be granted, resent very strongly being placed in the position of taking fees from these men and then, owing to the Act of 1919, being compelled to advise them that the whole procedure was a farce and that they have lost their -money.
One County Judge referred to it as a scandal and all who were concerned in putting through these applications feel that we were placed in a false position.
That is the opinion expressed by a very eminent Canadian barrister. Now are these men who had obtained these certificates prior to the Naturalization Act of 1919 still entitled, as they were before, irrespective

of the ten-year clause in the 1919 Naturalization Act, to vote under the present Bill?


Hugh Guthrie: There is no doubt about it,, if they obtained their certificates. I am speaking of the naturalization certificate under the law as it stood prior to the passing of the 1919 Act.
Mr. CiA'LDER: There must be a naturalization certificate from the Secretary of State.


Hugh Guthrie: A certificate that complied with the law as it then stood.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: So that any man who appeared before the county judge and was deemed fit for naturalization would be entitled to vote under the present Act?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think he would be naturalized, under the 1914 Act.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Prior to 1919, complying with the law as it then was.


Hugh Guthrie: If my hon. friend looks at the 1914 Act he will find differently I think.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: All the applicant had to do was this. He had to go before any barrister, preferably the County Crown Attorney, and prove if he was foreign born, that he had a residence of three years in Canada, then make his petition, then make his affidavit that he would file that petition, and give notice of application for naturalization for three months before the sittings of the county court sessions, and then become naturalized. What I want to know is this: Are those men who received their naturalization certificates from the County Crown Attorney, through the medium of being naturalized by the high court judge o.r a judge of the sessions, entitled to vote under the Act as it stands?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What have they got to do?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are not entitled because they did not get certificates of naturalization.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: They did.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let me point out what they got. The judge, under the Act of 1914, gives hobody a certificate of naturalization, but a certificate that the applicant has satisfied him, the judge, that he has the necessary qualifications to be naturalized. That certificate of the judge is not a

certificate that he is naturalized, but a certificate that he has the necessary qualifications. That certificate has to go to the Secretary of State, and upon that certificate the Secretary of State may issue the certificate of naturalization. He is under no obligation to issue it. On the contrary, he has an absolute discretion,, and a man has never got his naturalization certificate until he gets it from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can grant it, and nobody else.


Mr. MORPHY:: That is since 1914?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. The judge intervenes simply as the instrument to gather the necessary evidence and forward to the Secretary of State the certificate that he has satisfied himself that the man has the qualifications. The people to whom my hon. friend refers are entitled to every sympathy, but unfortunately, as the situation is described, if all they got before the last Naturalization Act came into force was the certificate that emaninated from the judge, they did not get their certificate of naturalization and apparently this legislation of 1919 operated to hold the hand of the Secretary of State and prevent his issuing certificates of naturalization.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Taking what the Minister of Justice (Mr/ Doherty) isays, it means that those who had received naturalization prior to 1914 by certificate of the judge are not under this Act entitled to vote, and by reason of the Naturalization Act of 1914, they will yet have to wait four years before they are entitled to vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The man who before
1914, or in fact,, for three years after 1914, got naturalized under the old Act-under the old Act the judge naturalized; he gave his certificate of naturalization and that was the end of the operation, for his certificate was the certificate of naturalization -was a naturalized British subject in Canada, and the later legislation did not take away from him What he already had.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: But it is taken away.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The man who was
naturalized under the Act in force prior to 1914, and which for people who had come into the country before 1914 remained in force for a further period of nearly three years, got naturalization in Canada alone, but he still has that thing that he got. So far as he personally is concerned his rights, so far as I know, are not affected by the legislation of 1919.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: He is still entitled to vote.


William Daum Euler: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: I was dealing with the case which the hon. member for West Lambton put forward, of the man who was cut off by the passing of the legislation of 1919. It is perfectly true that during the war the issuing of certificates under the legislation of 1914 to persons of alien enemy nationality was suspended.


William Daum Euler: Why, then, (were Orders in Council, providing for such naturalization, passed during the war?


Charles Joseph Doherty: When you say "Orders in Council," it is difficult to know precisely to what particular Orders in Council you refer. There were certain Orders in Council, looking to the particular eases of people who had been long periods of years in the country, and providing for exceptions to the general suspension that had been decided upon of the issuing of naturalization certificates to persons of alien enemy nationality during the war. Orders in

Council were passed making it possible to create exceptions. But such exceptions were not given effect to under those Orders in Council, because it (was found essential to the general safety of the Empire that, while the war was actually in progress, there should be no grants of naturalization to people of enemy nationality. That view was so strongly pressed and insisted upon that it was thought justifiable, notwithstanding that Orders in Council were passed, not to grant certificates while the war was on.


William Daum Euler: Do I understand the minister to say that there were actually no certificates of naturalization granted to people who had been born in Germany for example? Does he say that no exceptions were made?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to say that there was absolutely no exception made; I would have to verify that statement. But the general practice which the hon. member was complaining of was that certificates were njot granted. Now, whether there were one or more cases that were considered absolutely exceptional I am not in a position to say. The administration of the Act was not in my personal control but in the Department of the Secretary of State, and I am not in a position to answer that question. I was trying to explain to the hon. gentleman how it happened that though there were Orders in Council looking to the making of exceptions, on general principles certificates have not been granted and those Orders in Council have not been generally carried out. I cannot say that, during the course of the war there were not possibly some cases so exceptional as to justify the granting of certificates.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Are those who were not naturalized prior to 1914 or 1919 and who had lived in this country for forty years, entitled to become naturalized, or must they wait for ten years?
Mr; GUTHRIE: If they came from what we know as alien enemy countries they must wait for ten years.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Even though they may have lived here forty years?


Hugh Guthrie: Even so.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Then I want to make a strong protest against such an invidious restriction being incorporated in this statute. I do not believe it will be in the interests of the country. I have very strong sentiments in connection with the war and the

duties of citizenship, but it does appear to me that after all has been said and done, we should try as far as possible to get away from the war spirit and try to build the nation on the new principles which the war has taught us. Is it right that we should say to people, of whom undoubtedly there are large numbers in this country, that although they came here in order to get away as far as possible from the conditions that existed in their own countries; although they left their native land to avoid unjust and autocratic forcing into military service, coming to this country to seek peace and (quietness and happiness and to contribute to the wealth of their adopted land by their thrift and economy,- is it fair that we should say to them that, notwithstanding the .fact that they are good citizens, they shall be deprived of the rights of citizenship? No one knows better than the Acting Solicitor General that if you go up into these very sections where the largest percentage of these people live- and I can speak for Ontario-you will find men and women than whom there are no more thrifty, energetic, honest, law-abiding, God-fearing people anywhere. Yet, we are going to say to those people- Although you left your country many years ago, when you were mere children, and came here to escape the tyranny of your own country; although you have proved yourselves good citizens, having added to the wealth of this country, having paid your taxes, yet, by reason of a hard-and-fast law passed in this Parliament that recognizes nothing in mitigation of the accident of your birth, you are to be deprived of the right to have a single word to say in the government of your country. It does appear to me, and I want to speak as calmly and reasonably as possible, that in forcing such .a measure through, the Government is only making trouble for itself in the future and creating .a schism which ought not to exist, The whole civilized world to-day, .now that the war is over, is trying to forget the past few years and to allay bitter hatred and animosity, yet we are attempting to open old wounds in Canada to-day. I say that this is bad legislation. It is an enactment that ought to be very seriously and carefully considered before it is passed. I care not one whit as to what ,the provisions of Imperial citizenship may be.
It has been said: You cannot derogate from your own Act. In so far as Canada is concerned, the Parliament of Canada is the only one to say who shall and who

shall not vote for the representatives of this country. I do not want to take away from that to the extent of one iota. We are practically, in that respect, masters of our owh destiny. We should not pass that legislation, leave that schism, that breach, for a period of ten years and practically segregate a large portion of the people. The Acting Solicitor General has said, it is not a happy situation. I absolutely agree with him. It is 'a distinctly unhappy situation. It is not only an unhappy situation, but it is a situation that the Government is making more unhappy. Why could we not wipe out that Naturalization Act in effect by this Act? The Minister of Justice shakes his head. I suppose he means that we cannot wipe out that Naturalization Act without consent. I know not why. Surely we in this Parliament have power to repeal an Act that -we have passed. If we cannot do that, the sooner we know it the better. With Canada's status to-day-and with Canada's status I thoroughly agree-if we cannot, in our own House, run our own internal affairs, or make our statutes and declare who shall be entitled to return representatives for making the laws and looking after the affairs of this country without the consent of some one else, the sooner we know it the better.
I make the appeal very earnestly, I feel sincerely about it, and I am doing it for no political purpose whatever. This is an Act which will only redound to the discredit, and not to the benefit of Canada. I therefore think that w'e should so amend this Act, section 29 of the Bill, that the classes whom I have mentioned shall be entitled to vote. They have shown themselves to be good citizens and they are the victims of a condition for which they are not in the least responsible. Although they are thrifty, although they are God-fearing, although they are doing their best to upbuild Canada and promote its prosperity, shall we say, merely by reason of the accident of birth: <sWe will have none of you. You may pay your taxes, we will take your money, but as to you having a voice in the affairs of this nation, away with you." That is not good policy. It is not a policy that is going to build up and bring about the unity and cohesion of the people of Canada. The Government that passes that legislation and adheres to it is not acting in the interest of the people of Canada. It may be acting for a section of the people. The Government that passes that legislation will yet rue it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let me point out to the hon. gentleman that he did not quite grasp the point that I disagreed with him upon, although I am not prepared to say that I can endorse everything he said. The hon. gentleman says that the Act that we are dealing with now is taking the franchise away from these people. That is a mistake. This Act is giving the franchise to every British subject, with restrictions that have no hearing upon the matter at present under consideration. The difficulty that arises in the path of those on whose behalf the hon. gentleman has spoken with such force and eloquence is not to be found in this Act.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No, it is in the Naturalization Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is in the Naturalization Act.


Jacques Bureau: Does the hon. gentleman say that subsection 2 does not disfranchise people who, under the Naturalization Act. are British subjects?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let us keep to one difficulty at a time; the hon. gentleman has mentioned another class of people, but we are trying to deal with the particular class of people in regard to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pardee) has spoken. They are a class of people who never were naturalized. That is conceded, I understand. All this discussion is in the interest of a class of people who were not naturalized, who would desire to be naturalized but who are blocked in that respect by the ten-year requirement of the Naturalization Act.


Mr.   GANNON@: Some of these persons were naturalized by the operation of law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Suppose that there is a class also which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cannon) is interested in, it will make for clearness if we deal with each class by itself. The obstacle that is in the way of the particular class we are concerned with is the obstacle in the way of their becoming British subjects. If they could get over the obstacle of becoming British subjects under the Naturalization Act there would he no obstacle in the way of their voting. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pardee) wants to remedy that condition, and he suggests, as I understand, that the way to remedy that condition is to be found in this Act. It means that he wants to do it by providing that all those people who continue not to



be British subjects shall nevertheless have the vote.
Mr. PARD.EE: What I mean is that those people who have not been naturalized cannot be naturalized until ten years after the signing of the armistice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: My contention is that
this Act should provide that these people who are not alien enemies, without waiting for the period of ten years, should be entitled to become naturalized.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The contention is that
we should by this Act amend the Naturalization Act?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Quite so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not going to suggest it cannot be done. I would like to suggest another possible alternative by which we could both meet the case of these people and at the same .time avoid the complications which would result from our amending the Naturalization Act without having come to some understanding by which that amendment could not interfere with the Imperial nature of our naturalization. If we could get at that, if we could get the remedy in that way, it would seem to me that it would be possible to meet the situation by common consent.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the remedy?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As the Acting Solicitor General has pointed out the subject is one of negotiation with the Home government at the present time. If one were quite certain that we were going to have an election tomorrow, or in six months, or at sometime that would cause this legislation to operate to the serious detriment of anybody, that might be an argument to be urged for not pushing further our endeavours to. conciliate the two positions. But the matter is now actually being dealt with, and actively dealt with. My hon. friend, the Acting Solicitor General, is not as sanguine as I am. Perhaps he has not the sanguine temperament of the people of my race.


Hugh Guthrie: Of your youth.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Very well, of my
youth; but speaking frankly I do not myself see, why we should apprehend that we must wait until the Imperial Conference in 1921 to have this matter adjusted. Speaking in all earnestness I would be anxious, and I think I can say that on behalf of the Government-the Prime Min-

ister (Sir Robert Borden) quite some time ago undertook, at all events, to bring the npatter up-to find a manner whereby, without having either to dislocate our Imperial naturalization on the one hand, or to provide that these people may vote if they are not British subjects on the other hand-which I think would not be a desirable alternative-we could get at such an adjustment of this difficulty about the Naturalization Act as would remove the obstacle that stands in the way of that class of people, as to whom at all events-those of them who have been described to us this evening-I think there would be a general agreement that they were deserving of sympathy in this matter; at all events for myself I would not hesitate to say that I think they are. After all, so far as they are concerned, all that we are doing by this Act is to adhere to the requirement that a man must be a British subject^ in order to vote. Seriously, I hardly think the House would consider it desirable- if it is possible to attain the result in any other way-to introduce the novelty into our system of saying that people who are not British subjects may be entitled to vote.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Let them be naturalized.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then you have got to
deal with them by dealing with the question of naturalization; and I would think it is preferable to deal with that question of naturalization in connection with the Naturalization Act, and in such a manner -if that be possible-as to meet the difficulty that now arises without jeopardizing or prejudicing the effect which ought to be attached, and which is attached at present, to our naturalizations. It was only as the result of very long negotiations, and a good deal of patience and of perseverance, that we attained the result which we have attained without sacrificing the principle for which the hon. gentleman spoke so eloquently-the principle that nobody but this Parliament ought to decide'who ought to vote in Canada, or to decide who ought to be a naturalized British subject in Canada. It was only after a good deal of patience and persevering action that we arrived at the result which we have attained to-day under which the naturalization that comes from no authority in this world but the Canadian Parliament is recognized as an effective naturalization throughout the Empire. Now that is a very desirable thing, in the interest of all Canadian citizens.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I point out to the
minister that we have to take it all or nothing; with its defects and faults we have to swallow7 it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. We took it after it had been modified in most important respects upon the representations of the Government of Canada.


Samuel William Jacobs: Then we agreed to the
ten years' disqualification?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The ten years' disqualification did not come in simultaneously with our naturalizations becoming Imperial. There was no ten-year disqualification in the legislation of 1914; the ten-year disqualification came as a subsequent provision in 1919. Before 1919 w7e had a Naturalization Act fixing the conditions of naturalization which we agreed to. It is true they were not all of them what we originally suggested; but neither were they all of them what Great Britain originally suggested. Nevertheless we came to an agreement-and let me say in parenthesis in passing that it was one of the most effective and clear-cut recognitions of our right to determine for ourselves the question of naturalization which was one of the few questions that remained in dispute. When we started out in the negotiations it- was assumed in Great Britain that they would pass a Naturaliza ion Act and that by virtue of their Act of Parliament their naturalizations would be effective in this country, but that was not the way the legislation finally passed. Their naturalizations are effective in this country because a section of a statute of the Canadian Parliament confers the power upon the Secretary of State over there to grant certificates of naturalization which shall be effective in Canada, just as their Parliament gives to us power to grant certificates that shall be effective in that country. There is no more outstanding piece of evidence of the recognition of equality of status than that very naturalization legislation, but- that was not the way in which the matter was put forward to us at the outset. We had a year or so of negotiation. Now what have we achieved? We had achieved that situation before this legislation of 1919 that on conditions agreed upon, which made our legislation similar, our naturalizations obtained this great advantage, and their naturalizations obtained the same advantage by our legislation. Then came this desire on the part of the United Kingdom, and apparently certain 132*
other of the Dominions, to enact this exceptional provision arising out of the war. Now, of course to maintain our naturalizations Imperial it became necessary that we should keep our legislation similar or at least it was so thought; and it was, as I understand,-as to this I am not speaking from my own personal knowledge, I was absent when the legislation was passed- to meet that requirement of obtaining uniformity that the provision as to the ten years which had been adopted m Great Britain was adopted in this Parliament. My suggestion would be that we should make our best endeavour to obtain a remedy for that without disrupting our Imperial naturalizations, before we resort to what the hon. gentleman points out it is perfectly possible for us to do-repeal the provision which makes our naturalization similar to that of the United Kingdom, and I believe with that of the other dominions; I think they have all passed it, at all events whether that be so or not, to make it similar to that of the United Kingdom. Before we resqrt to that, before we say. " We have this thing that we want to remedy and we will pitch our Imperial naturalization to the winds for the sake of remedying that." Perhaps it would be justifiable to do so, I am not going to discuss that question now. Perhaps the remedy of this thing is worth that but I do not think we have reached that stage yet-let us make, at all events, our best endeavour to see if we cannot find a proper remedy for this difficulty without jeopardizing or without sacrificing the Imperial nature of our naturalization. I am hopeful that we shall find an adjustment of this difficulty which will enable us to preserve the Imperial nature of our naturalization and at the same time to meet the deserving cases that have been pointed out. I do not know that it is necessary for us this evening to consider whether this ten-year clause might not be properly applicable to some class of people. I do not know whether it would be suggested, for instance, that as regards people coming in in the future


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The Minister intimates that he is hopeful of an adjustment. May I suggest that those who are being debarred from the right to vote under the Act by reason of the provisions of the Naturalization Act be placed in the same position as women are now placed in who become British subjects by operation of law, namely, the position under which, they may, if they have resided five years in Canada prior to the passing of the Naturalization

Act, 1919, go before a judge, take the oath of allegiance, and, provided they are otherwise properly qualified, be granted the right to vote? Why should those whom it is now proposed to debar be placed in a worse position than the women?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The women we are including are women who are British subjects and who, if they had not become British subjects by their marriage, for instance, would on their own qualifications have been entitled to become British subjects.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: So would these men.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The difficulty with' these men is that they are not British subjects, and under the existing Naturalization Law cannot become British subjects; and if this Act is going to give them the right to vote it will have to do so notwithstanding that they are not British subjects. On the other hand, the women my hon. friend speaks of are British subjects by marriage, and without this legislation would have the right to vote.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: They are British subjects, but they cannot vote unless they get this certificate.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a different question.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It is not a different question so far as the purposes of this Act are concerned.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are a class of people from whom the vote to which they would otherwise be entitled is taken by this Act.


Lucien Cannon: And from the wives and the children.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If this Act had not stepped in, these women, having become British subjects by marriage, or the children, having become British subjects by the naturalization of their fathers, would have had a .vote. This Act steps in and says that people naturalized in that way, though they are British subjects,-it -does not say they are not British subjects-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: But it is the question of giving them the vote.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Act takes the vote from them.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: But it gives it back to them if they get this certificate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Subject to certain conditions, it gives it back, but in doing both [Mr Pardee.]
these things it is dealing with the right to vote,-granting or refusing, but always granting or refusing to a person who is a British subject. But as to the other class, we have to get over that other hurdle; perhaps it is only a sentimental thing-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think it is.
Mr. DOHERTY-: But I am not so sure that there are not some sentimental things that have value in the life of a nation.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Quite true.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Surely the hon. gentleman will concede that it would be an undesirable thing to give the vote to a man who is not a British subject; that it would be better to find a way to make him a British subject than to try to find a way to give him a vote when he is not a British subject.


Jacques Bureau: If you take the vote away from a British subject you may as well give it to one wdio is not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are other British subjects who do not have votes.


Lucien Cannon: The minister's chief argument as against giving the vote to the first class, those who are not British subjects, was that that would involve an amendment of the Naturalization Law, and, as regards the second class, the wives and children, the electoral law says that they must secure from a judge a certificate before voting. According to the Naturalization Act, these people are British subjects. Section 1, paragraph 3 of the Naturalization Act says:
Nothing in this section shall, except as otherwise expressly provided, affect the status of any person born before the commencement of this Act.


Hugh Guthrie: That applies only to
natural-born British subjects.


Mr.   GANNON@: No.


Hugh Guthrie: Read the heading.


Lucien Cannon: I have read it. So that
according to this Act a woman is a British subject and her status can be changed by the Franchise Act. If we change it as is done in the Franchise Act, we are amending the Naturalization Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be glad, so far
as it is in my power to do so, to throw any light I can upon the questions arising in regard to the women and the children under this section. But, as I said before, I would like to keep clearly distinct the two classes with which we have been dealing.

In that regard, it does seem to me that our best method is to exhaust every means of meeting the difficulty that results from the Naturalization Act, treating it as a naturalization question, before we resort to amendments to an election Act for the - purpose of removing that difficulty-amendments that may cost us the very high price of loss of our Imperial naturalization or of putting upon us in the alternative of taking the position that though we cannot make these people British subjects, yet we give them the vote. This does not seem to me to be the proper origin of the grievance- The grievance is born not of this Act, but of the Naturalization Act. This Act itself, so far as these people are concerned, continues to recognize the principle that the right to vote applies to the British subject or citizen; that that is a sine qua non to the right to vote. All British subjects have not the right to vote, but up to the present no man who is not a British subject has had the right to vote. Now, it is a serious thing to suggest departing from that, and I think that hon. gentlemen might be satisfied to give us an opportunity to see whether we can meet the difficulty in dealing with the Naturalization Act, and to allow this Bill, which upon this question only stands by the principle that to be a voter you must be a 'British subject, to pass, so far as this particular provision is concerned.


William Daum Euler: I should like to make a
few observations and to suggest what appears to me to be a very reasonable and . logical remedy. At the outset I may repeat that it should be perfectly plain to the members of the Committee that there are two groups of people under discussion, and that the amendment itself only applies to those who are British subjects by operation of law.
I believe the amedment will give them the franchise if they fulfil a certain condition. But we have entered to-night upon a discussion of another matter, the status of another group of people in this country, who are not Canadian citizens because they are not naturalized, but to whom naturalization should be given. I think the Government itself is admitting that this second group of people, smaller than the first, is of a kind worthy of naturalization because they have for many years considered themselves British subjects. I admit that, in order that this second group of people may be permitted to vote, they must first obtain naturalization, and that the remedy must come through an amendment to the Naturalization Act or the
enactment of a new law that will give them the franchise.
When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) states that it is desirable that all Canadian citizens naturalized in future shall have Imperial naturalization, I agree with him entirely, and I believe that is a highly desirable thing. Last year when the new Naturalization Act was under consideration and the status of these people' was being discussed, the Prime Minister at that time promised to take the matter up with the Imperial Government in order that a modification might be made that would permit of the naturalization of these alien people. The Minister of Justice to-night states that he is quite optimistic that that modification will be made. I am very glad to hear that; but I am just a little dubious about the rapidity with which that may be obtained, in the light of what has already taken place, or rather has not so far taken place, because the Naturalization Act of 1919 was passed almost a year ago and it is almost a year since the promise was made, quite honestly and sincerely I think, by the Prime Minister that he *yvould attempt to obtain that modification; yet, to-day, so far as we know, we are precisely in the same position as regards these people as we were a year ago. I fear that if progress is not any more rapid than it has been, it may quite well come to the time of another election before justice is rendered to these people. It was not, apparently, the intention of the British Government, nor of the representatives of the Dominion when this matter was discussed at the Peace Conference, that the Dominions should be tied hard and fast to that ten-year clause. I think the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) will bear me out in that regard, because I think either he himself or the Prime Minister said on the floor of this House last year, when the Naturalization Act was under discussion, that it was intended and stated than that it should be possible for the Dominions, Such as Canada, where conditions differed from those in England, to vary their laws with regard to people such as those whose case we have been discussing to-night. I think I am right in that. Yet when the Act was. put through the British Parliament, it was so framed, inadvertently, that it became necessary for the Dominions to adopt that holus-bolus as their own. If it be true that it was not originally the intention to make the Act so stringent in this country, and if this slipped, if I may use that expression, inadvertently-into the British Act so that it became neces-

sary to make ours the same in order to conform with it, then it should not be difficult to obtain the consent of the British authorities to such a modification, and to obtain it very quickly if it was not originally the intention that the Act should be framed as it is at present. I throw that out as a suggestion. I mean to convey the idea that it should be possible to obtain from the British Government a consent to the modification very quickly, if possible, before this House rises. I should like to make the further suggestion, that if the Government receives a negative reply from the British Government, it then surely becomes the-duty of the Canadian Parliament to protect its people by giving them Canadian naturalization.
I want to make this suggestion also, which I think is fair and would solve the difficulty with regard to this group of people which I am free to admit is, not as large as the other group which is being enfranchised under this amendment. Why could not this Parliament simply enact, for the purpose of these people, the old naturalization law giving them only Canadian citizenship? I do not mean to say that we should keep on our statute books two naturalization laws permanently; but in order to meet the fair demands of these people who have waited a long time, why should we not re-enact the law which would give them Canadian naturalization, and then, just so soon as you obtain a modification of the Act of last year, we can repeal the Canadian naturalization law? I do not see why that suggestion could not be accepted, and if it could, it would solve the difficulty.
While I am on my feet I should like again to make the suggestion that I do not see what possible harm could be done- and this would obviate the difficulty with regard to these British subjects who are British subjects by operation of law-if you simply strike out subclause 2 of clause 29 and base the vote on broad British citizenship instead of compelling women-and this is absolutely true as I showed the other night-who have had sons at the war, who have had sons killed in the war- to appear before a judse in order to prove that they are worthy of the franchise, when it is admitted that they are British subjects, and when their husbands can go to the polls without appearing before a judge. They are British subjects by operation of the law, so why should they have to appear before a judge to prove that they have a light to vote?


William Stevens Fielding: I sympathize very warmly with the view of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) that we should, if possible, find a remedy for this grievance without interfering with the Naturalization Act which is, I think, of great value and importance to Canada. We had, as has been referred to in this discussion, a number of very distinguished citizens in Canada who thought they were British subjects, but who, while they were British subjects on this side of the Atlantic, discovered that they were not British subjects when they landed in Great Britain. After many years an Imperial Naturalization Act was enacted. The distinguished gentleman who is High Commissioner for Canada in London at the present time discovered when he got over there that he was not' a British subject although he was a minister of the Crown in Canada. He was born in the United States; he was naturalized in Canada; he was a British subject for all our purposes, but he was not a British subject in Great. Britain. It was to remedy that case and other cases of a like character that the Imperial Naturalization Act was passed. I think, in the main, that law is a good one. The Minister of Justice and the Acting Solicitor General have repeatedly referred to negotiations that have been in progress with respect to the naturalization law. I wonder if my hon friends could tell me what was the Objective of which the Minister of Justice is so hopeful but of which the Acting Solicitor General is not so hopeful.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The difference in our hopefulness is only as to period of time and not as to ultimate attainment. What we had in mind was to endeavour to have an agreement whereby this particular provision of ten years should not be insisted upon as being essential of application in all of the Dominions concerned in order that the certificate of that Dominion should be accepted as meeting the essential requirements for Imperial naturalization. Speaking for myself it seems to me it ought to be possible that, while yo.u might insist upon certain fundamental things as being essential to the legislation of all the countries concerned, in order that the naturalization be effective throughout all those countries, there might fairly be left a certain play of discretion for each country to make additional requirements which it considers necessary to meet its own peculiar conditions.


Ernest Lapointe: Who will make the
decision as to that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The decision, like all
other decisions where you are trying to get concurrent action, would have to be by agreement.


Ernest Lapointe: A conference?
Air. DOHERTY": You may do something by correspondence, you may do something by getting together, but I would hope that such a decision might be arrived at without calling a formal Imperial Conference to discuss the matter. I cannot promise, I do not know how it will strike other people. The hon. gentleman asked what wTas the purpose we had in view. The purpose we had in view, having this particular thing in mind, but not confining ourselves absolutely to that, was, speaking for myself, just what I have stated, that it ought to be possible. We have laid the foundation, we have got all these essential conditions which everybody was agreed should be the conditions of imperial naturalization, and it seems to me it ought to be quite within the bounds of possibility to continue to recognize all round the naturalizations as imperial as long as those fundamental things are adhered to, but still leave some opportunity for making suitable provisions in each country to meet conditions that may be peculiar to itself, those conditions taking the form of additional requirements.


William Stevens Fielding: The ten-year clause, I understand, is the real cause of the trouble; that is the snag. I understand that what *my hon. friend has in mind is that they shall induce the British Government and the other parties to agree to reduce that period either generally or as respects Canada. Am I right?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the object.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that the hon. gentleman suggests that it might be reduced. Well, I know enough about the slowness of making changes over there to be a little less confident than my hon. friend is as to an early solution along these lines. The desire for uniformity in a naturalization law is very strong, and a proposal that you vary that Uniformity and provide that there may be one condition for one Dominion and another condition for another will be objected to very strongly. I am inclined to think that the British Government will be slow to agree to a change. If I could feel it was coming very quickly, perhaps I would not feel there *was any need of doing anything else. But why should we not in the meantime act
on the suggestion of my hon. friend from North Waterloo and provide that these people who should be qualified, being naturalized under our hitherto law, so to speak, shall continue to be deemed British subjects in Canada for the purpose of voting. My hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) has said they are not British subjects. He assumes that now we have adopted this naturalization law a man can only be a British subject when he is a British subject recognized by the Imperial Act. But we have had two kinds of naturalization law in Canada for fifty years. We have had a naturalization law for Great Britain, and we have had a naturalization law for Canada. I agree that it' is desirable that there should be uniformity, but we have had two kinds of naturalization law for half a century, and when we find that by this sudden change we are shutting out a worthy class of our people ' from the privilege of the franchise I can see no difficulty in passing .an Act not touching naturalization law for imperial purposes, but providing that these persons, being otherwise properly qualified, shall be deemed to be British subjects in Canada so far as to entitle them to vote. I see no difficulty in doing that at all.


Mr. ROWELL:: Aly hon. friend is in error in his statement that we have had two classes of naturalization under ^ our Canadian law for the past fifty years. Speaking from recollection, we only had the one Act relating to. naturalization in force prior to the recent imperial naturalization going into effect.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend sees
what I mean.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is quite true that a man born a British subject had the rights of a British citizen in all portions of the Empire. In that Tespect he stood in a different position from the man naturalized under our Canadian law, who did not have the right of British citizenship outside the Dominion.
As my hon. friend from North Waterloo has referred to the proceedings of the Imperial Conference when these and kindred questions were under consideration I desire to make just a brief reference to that, because I think it will throw some light on the present situation and on the prospect of reaching an understanding with the British .government in reference to it. There are in the Imperial Naturalization Law-I am now referring to the Act passed by the British House of Commons in 1919 amend-


William Daum Euler: Does the minister think that it is within the bounds of probability, at any rate, that we may get that reply from the British Government before the House rises?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is possible; I cannot say that it is probable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would it not be possible to take up this matter by cable through the High Commissioner in London at once with a view to obtaining some answer that could be given to Parliament in a day or two?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I doubt whether we could get an answer in a day or two. My hon. friend will realize that in connection with

i
matters of this kind you are not likely to get a reply in such a brief space of time. I may say, however, that it is the intention of the Minister of Justice to use the cable, and so far as lies within our power, we shall secure the earliest possible reply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to hear the minister say that it is the intention of the Government to take this matter up by cable. I should think that if the Government were to represent to the British authorities that this Parliament is in session and is anxious to have this matter settled before prorogation, there would be every tendency on the part of the British office to facilitate matters. It is just a matter of the Government making their representations strong enough.


William Daum Euler: Will it be possible for the House to, amend the Naturalization Act before the British Parliament has amended its Act in this particular?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 1 think the Act would
have to be amended by the British Parliament before our naturalization could be made effective. All we could get by cable would be the answer of the British Government that they would or would not submit legislation to Parliament to cover the matter; but I should think that if they submitted legislation to Parliament that legislation would go- through.
Mr. 'EULER: But it would not be possible for this Parliament to enact legislation at this session, under the best circumstances, according to the statement of the minister. If before we can legally do anything in this matter it is necessary for the British Parliament first to make their change, then, if they are not now in session, it would be impossible for us to enact legislation at this session.
iMr. ROWELL: One cannot, of course, say anything so far as that is concerned until one knows what answer the British Government will make as to what they are prepared to do.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: I would not
presume to follow the more or less involved legal discussion that has taken place tonight; but it seems to me, if I have been able to grasp the trend of the debate, that it is in the mind of the Government and of those who have been discussing this subject that the enactment of 1919, under which enemy aliens of German, Austrian, Bulgarian or Turkish origin cannot be granted the franchise in Canada or be naturalized
for ten years after the signing of the Armistice, is to be amended and we are going to go back to conditions that prevailed before 1914 under which all these classes, without any effort being made to determine their qualifications for Canadian citizenship, might be naturalized and, as I heard an hon. member say tonight, be made Canadian citizens by the hundred overnight. I realize that what my hon. friend from North Waterloo has said with regard to certain individuals who have lived in this country for a long time may be correct; there may be some people of that class. But I would say to my hon. friend in this connection that- if, as I understood him and as I think I understood the hon. member for West Lambton to say, there are men who have lived in Canada fer twenty, thirty or forty years, having come to this country from Germany, Austria or Bulgaria, and who had not become British subjects up to 1914, then, having lived in Canada all these years prior to 1914 without having manifested any desire to become British or Canadian citizens willing to share the full responsibilities which Canadians had to bear during the years of the war, they can very well wait for the period of time which it has been deemed wise for men of enemy countries to wait following the signing of the Armistice.


William Daum Euler: (Is the 'hon. member aware that some of the men of whom he speaks actually had sons in the war who cannot get naturalization now?
.'Mr. NICHOLSON: I appreciate that fact, and if a means can be found to remedy that condition without opening the door wide, as is the apparent desire to-night, to all of these people of enemy origin so as to allow them to become enfranchised citizens, then I would be willing to go all the way in the interests of those men who had seen service in the war. But the whole trend of the discussion has implied a desire on the part of hon. members, not to rectify such specific defects as mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Euler), but to go back to conditions under which we were having dumped into sections of this country, night and day through a slipshod form of enfranchisement, hundreds of people who knew absolutely nothing of Canadian ideals and who evidenced the fact that they lacked all sense of Canadianism; for if they had Canadian ideals they would have become Canadian citizens before 1914. I am not considering this question from any partisan

standpoint, but I say that it is absolutely unfair to those Canadian citizens who bore the burden of the war to say, now that the war is over, that we are going to open the door wide to Germans, Austrians, Bulgarians and Turks, and tell those people: "You can come to Canada and get identically the same privileges as are enjoyed by those citizens who palyed their part in the war and whose sons stood face to face with men of your origin in the trenches in France and Flanders and elsewhere". Before the Government goes very far in the direction of throwing the door wide open let me warn them that they are going to raise a question in this country that will not be easily settled.


William Stevens Fielding: I would like to call the attention of . the Government to the difficulty of getting an answer from the British Government. Before an answer can be given it will require a decision of the British Government and decisions of governments, even of this Government, are not obtained very quickly. Having obtained the' decision of the British Government, you require to have an Act of the British Parliament and that is something that will be attended with much difficulty. The minister has told us that negotiations were conducted between the British and Canadian Governments before this Act was framed. I take it that there were similar negotiations with the governments of the other British dominions. This Act has been something in the nature of a Treaty between Canada, Great Britain and the various overseas dominions and they will all have to be consulted before a change takes place. Taking all these things into account I am not in the least bit sanguine that a measure of immediate relief can be obtained in that direction. If there is a grievance, and the minister thinks there is a grievance, I think it will be better to seek the remedy in another way.


Samuel William Jacobs: This section requires a few amendments in order to be acceptable. I think the Gordian knot ought to be cut by the minister who has (the Bill in charge by striking out subsection 2 completely. That would give satisfaction all round. I consider subsection 2 a blot upon the Bill. To my mind it is nothing but arrant nonsense. I have stated this several times before when Franchise Bills similar to this were before the House, and I see nothing so far to cause me to change my view. We have not heard a word this evening in justification of the second part of subsection 2 which makes a distinction between fMr. Nicholson.]
people born on the continent of North America and people bom in other parts of the world. The minister has not so far enlightened us as to why this distinction is being made. Before proceeding any further I should like to know why it is found in this Bill.


Hugh Guthrie: Because we recognize that people born on this continent are very similar in their ideas, laws, customs and habits to our own people and we can very quickly assimilate them to our ways, and that therefore we permit them to vote without any injustice to ourselves and without as long a period of probation as we require of people from central Europe or from other parts of the world.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not central Europe. This takes in the whole of Europe, and includes France and Belgium.


Hugh Guthrie: From Europe. They are not accustomed to our ways, language, laws and political institutions. That is the reason for the distinction to be found in the Bill. Perhaps there may be other reasons, but that is the main reason. I think I can assure the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) that the Government has no intention whatever of indiscriminately opening wide the door to permit all the classes of people that we have been discussing to-night to come in and obtain naturalization as British subjects. There will be investigation and inquiry. There may be some worthy and some unworthy ones and I do not for a moment say that all the fathers of the boys who served in the war should vote. Certainly they will never vote in my riding with my consent. I could cite the concrete case of two young men of German parentage who went to the war, one of whom won the military cross. The father would not allow them to come home to bid good-bye to their mother; he threatened to shoot them. Do you think that man should have a vote? I would keep that man ten years on probation. I do not say that is the general thing but I do say that no government would be justified in indiscriminately throwing open the door and admitting everybody. There would be an inquiry so that the worthy ones may be rewarded and the unworthy ones put on probation.


Samuel William Jacobs: 
Jacques Bureau: The swallow-tail-coat Act.


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes, the swallow-tail-coat Act as my hon. friend has said. But the trouble, Mr. Chairman, is that we always like to worship something from afar; we like to worship false gods; and we find ourselves in this condition purely because we dropped and wiped off the statute books

an Act that would have given satisfaction all around, and took on this legislation which gives satisfaction to none. I do not know how the Government are going to explain to any respectable body of foreign-born what they had in mind by putting on the statute books this subsection 2 of section 29. The hon. gentleman thinks he has improved it with amendments. I remember when the weakness in the armour was discovered by the hon. member for'North Waterloo on the occasion of the second reading o'f the Bill. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) rushed to -the rescue and pointed out that the section did not mean what it said it meant. Now the Acting Solicitor General has introduced an amendment which he says, in effect, is going to correct the difficulty. The hon. member for North Waterloo, however, says that the Under Secretary of State agrees with him and disagrees with the Acting Solicitor General with regard to the meaning of certain words in this section when these are read wdth the words of another section of the Act. Now all this difficulty wre can rid ourselves of toy simply striking out the section which pleases no one, and which cannot please the Acting Solicitor General -to my mind it does not, because he is too good a lawyer to believe that any section such as that would meet with any commendation from lawyers or the community generally. It is bad in its inception, it is unjust in its conception; and for that reason I could have hoped that it had been stifled in its birth. I am satisfied to accept the other sections of the Bill, which I read over very carefully, and which I think are fairly just.	-


An hon. MEMBER:: Not all.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not all, but as much as we could expect from gentlemen who do not think as we do in some things. I scarcely believe the phrase, "nothing good can come out of Nazareth." Sometimes something good does come out; and I would be willing to give my unqualified praise if the hon. gentleman will consent, now that he is in an amending mood, to strike out this obnoxious clause from the Act. I may say that so long as I am a member of the House -this is not in the way of a threat, but it is a prediction-I will introduce, year after year, Bills to amend this obnoxious section, if it becomes law, until it is finally taken from the statute book. In other words I intend to picket the Government-I trust the Minister of Justice undertsands what I

mean toy that-I intend to picket the Government until this obnoxious section is removed.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the amendment
carry?


Jacques Bureau: No. This important
amendment has not been half discussed yet, we are only getting started. I move that the committee rise and report progress. It is one o'clock. The Railway Committee meets in a few hours, and there are important measures to be brought before that committee. I think we have done a good day's work. Sitting from three o'clock in the afternoon till one o'clock the next morning is a longer spell than my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council, at the International Labour Conference, agreed to allow the people to work in this country, and we do not want to set a bad example.


Hugh Guthrie: We have not done very badly to-night, we have done fairly well, and were we to sit for another hour we would have done even better. I have no objection under the circumstances to ask the committee to rise and report progress.
Progress reported. _
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 1.05' a.m. (Thursday) .
Thursday, May 6, 1920